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

  • RMweb Premium

I feel I am going to be told to stand outside in the corridor.....

 

After George Stephenson the next important two engineers in locomotive development were not railwaymen,  Rudolf Diesel and William Sturgeon (made the first practical electric motor).

 

"Close the door quietly".

Edited by Clive Mortimore
  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

Do you have an opinion as to which is the better kit for a C12; the Craftsman one or the SE Finecast example? I ask the question because I've built both (more than one of each), and I have another Craftsman one to build for a friend.

 

Tony. 

 

 

Tony

Each has its merits but I think overall the Craftsman is better. However, the LRM square tank/bunker C12 is probably the best of the C12 kits (I think ACE do one as well but I have no idea what that is like)

 

On the Craftsman C12 the cab roof has a bit too much curve in it and I've never tried to correct that. Also the smoke box door is rather large. The kit does go together very well (with solder of course! In fact my 1979 build was my first attempt at soldering a brass kit and even then it wasn't until about 1992 that I started to solder whitemetal!). The right hand rear bunker top always seems to be a bit short and needs to be lenthened as well.

 

Although I've not built a SE Finecast C12 a friend has and he sold it to another friend of ours (the same friend I built a Craftsman C12 for in about 2000) so I get to see both of those every 6 weeks or so when we operate Nottingham Victoria. In my view on the SEF C12 the cab is too chunky which is exacerbated by the too low cab doorways. The smokebox door although better in diameter is very chunky and the smokebox dart makes it look worse. Anything I build now I generally make my own darts from a piece of wire and two shoulderless handrail knobs cut to length.

 

On the models I've built, other than my first one I couldn't say what chimneys and domes I've fitted as I've gathered a range from various sources and always fitted what I had that looks best. The range of chimneys includes the Craftsman w/m, Gibson last wax brass, short LRM lost wax and possibly others. I also purchased four LRM w/m C12 smokebox fronts and four sets of LRM lost wax safety valves and whistles when I was in UK in 2017, which I picked up from John at Railex after we'd visited you. So the rebuild I have to do at some stage will be upgraded with some of these fittings.

 

I've seen the LRM C12 that Frank Davies built for the Clayton project at Shipley MRS. Its very nice but I think I would have found a different chimney for it and I do believe that LRM may be bringing out a round tank/bunker version at some stage?

 

In answer to your question on bunker side steps there should be one step on the left hand side and also an angled handrail on the back of the cab side sheet level with the top of the opening - note these appear to be only on the round tank/bunker C12s not the early square tank /bunker builds.

 

The two I currently have for my layout and operating on Spirsby are:

 

Craftsman kit obtained part built. It came with this lovely bogie and trailing pony wheels - possibly Ultrascale? The drivers are Markits. It has LRM whistle, safety valves and smokebox front and front tapered sprung buffers from goodness knows where! Chimney is either Gibson or LRM?

1201861057_IMG_9909ps.jpg.def9cd505382a0640159adce31ae0198.jpg

My original 1979 build with some extra detailing fitted a year ago and also lined a year ago and renumbered. LRM whistle fitted, vacuum and steam heat pipes along the valances. Tapered instead of parallel buffers to suit 4508 rather than the previous number 4507.

1104509813_IMG_9903ps.jpg.63f9744e2aa2e12b868eb2474af57408.jpg

1578377845_IMG_9906ps.jpg.c7c53739746e5f61506fab6066407506.jpg

Andrew

  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Please check your spelling for a start.

I would certainly describe the Q1 as the work of a genius.

Greatest power for the least weight.

Surely that is a great achievement in engineering terms?

Double chimneys and blast pipes, welded carriage underframes, the famous articulated sets. All Bulleid's work while under Gresley. 

But then I am biased having spent many hours at the Welding Institute where boring lectures were made interesting by seeing the name of Bulleid on a plaque on the wall.:D

Bernard

 

 

Sorry about the poor speeling. I went to a Gramar school (at least that's how it was spelled (spelt?) on my blazer badge.

 

You may be overlooking the infamous Leader and the valve-gear drive on the Pacifics. I doubt if Gresley would heave been too chuffed about either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Simon's use of the word 'genius' with regard to ET was also in correspondence with me. 

 

When he visited me here, we chatted for quite some time. There's no doubt he's a Thompson fan, but he knew little (at the time) about the almost 'mutiny' which took place in Scotland when the P2s were rebuilt. Despite their flaws, the P2s were the only locos (in the country, not just on the LNER) capable of hauling the heaviest loads, unassisted, on the Aberdeen road. What's also more recently come to light is their use on enormous, overnight troop trains to Newcastle during the war. Trask is quoted as stating 'It'll take more than Thompson to sack me!'. 

 

Geoff Lund clearly puts some of the P2s' problems down to inadequate workmanship at Cowlairs (the biggest locos the works had repaired prior to the P2s were the Reid Atlantics). In his view, the giants should have always gone to Darlington or Doncaster for shopping. 

 

Apart from the need for fewer spares, there is no absolute advantage in having equal-length (short) connecting rods. In fact, longer rods are mechanically-superior. The short rods were used on the A2/2s because Thompson was committed to using as much from the P2s as he could. There was nothing of 'genius' about it. The cylinder set-up was an engineering disaster. The arrangement was impossible to keep steam-tight and the cylinders worked loose. If the same arrangement was thought to be advantageous, why, on Thompson's retirement, was a reversion made to longer outside connecting rods in the case of the Peppercorn A2s and A1s. These were far better locos than any of Thompson's Pacifics. 

 

The running department in Scotland was effectively told that 'By rebuilding the P2s into A2/2s we've solved the problems you've encountered. However, we've now introduced different, though equally-debilitating, problems. And, I'm sorry to say that the class can't do what it used to as 2-8-2s. In fact, they'll all be transferred south where the work is less-demanding, and you'll have to make do with what you've got until the Peppercorn engines come on stream'. 

 

The forthcoming new P2, with the problems ironed out at source (yes, I know hindsight is easy) will prove the full potential of the mighty 2-8-2s. The irony is (without CAD and better materials), the pony/crank axle issues could have been solved much more easily than rebuilding, even three quarters of a century ago. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The Doncaster Chief Draughtsman thought that designing a locomotive around the con-rods was ridiculous-as shown up by the cylinder problems.

It will be interesting to see the new P2 under trials, and how it compares to the A4s, 71000 and Duchesses.

 

As for new builds, I recommend the Pennsylvania Duplexii site, where something far more ambitious is being built.  The original duplexii engines were an expensive lesson in harmonic vibration-prone to sudden uncontrollable slipping, but the team involved in this project state that they can solve this.  With Franklin valve gear specified, it should go like the wind.

 

Bulleid was an exceptional engineer, provided he was kept in check by the likes of Gresley, who would never have allowed the Leader or chain drive valve gear.  I thought that his Turf Burner was an ideal solution for CIE-especially as the MetroVick diesels were duds with their Crossley engines.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jrg1 said:

Bulleid was an exceptional engineer, provided he was kept in check by the likes of Gresley,

 

That's my point. Exceptional engineers make things that just work. Bullied was an inventor. Some of his inventions were great and some not so much. That's not to detract from what he did. He "pushed the envelope" and we need people who can do that. Exceptional engineers are those who make things work and seldom get the praise they deserve because their solutions are usually "obvious" after the fact.

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

Andy, One hundred lines: Oliver Vaughan Snell Bulleid

 

The appointment of Bulleid was almost the final act of Sir Herbert Walker in 1937.  He was inherited by Gilbert Szlumper, who was General Manager for less than two years before being seconded to the War Office.  He was replaced by "Useless Eustace" Missenden.

 

The SR Chairmen were Robert Holland-Martin until 1944, then Eric Gore-Brown - both doubled barrelled bankers!  Nuff said?

 

Obviously Useless failed to manage Bulleid, resulting in 30 self-immolating Channel Packets and no less than 110 light pacifics, ok more reliable, but that many?   Szlumper was a bumptious little sh1t, but he could manage people, Useless was a pen pusher.

 

One can speculate what would have happened if Szlumper had stayed.  Would Bulleid have returned to Doncaster?  There would have been the first 20 Channel Packets, obviously, but thereafter?   What the Southern Railway really needed was a modern 4-6-0 on the H15 chassis and (I'm no engineer, so was it possible) the Schools chassis extended to a three cylinder 4-6-0.  So basically a Black 5 and a Jubilee.

 

Bill

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

On the subject of geniuses and invention heroes, it is interesting that all those named thus far reside in the annals of history.  There is a complete dearth of modern day equivalents, at least in the realms of railways and transport engineering.  

 

We are surrounded by bland anonymity, regarding the characters developing our modern railway world.  Is it because the world’s focus has moved on to digital technology and commercial entrepreneurs?  Or is it that Britain just imports all its stuff from elsewhere these days? 

 

Edit: from a Cornish perspective, I’d add Richard Trevithick to the list as well!

Edited by Chamby
  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chamby said:

On the subject of geniuses and invention heroes, it is interesting that all those named thus far reside in the annals of history.  There is a complete dearth of modern day equivalents, at least in the realms of railways and transport engineering.  

 

 

I'd add a relatively modern-day person to that list: Prof Eric Laithwaite - the father of maglev. A true innovator rather than someone who just tinkers with the design of a water boiler powered by an obsolete fossil fuel. Linear motors and maglev trains provide the world with some of its fastest railways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite

 

 

 

 

Edited by grahame
  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 minutes ago, Chamby said:

On the subject of geniuses and invention heroes, it is interesting that all those named thus far reside in the annals of history.  There is a complete dearth of modern day equivalents, at least in the realms of railways and transport engineering.  

 

We are surrounded by bland anonymity, regarding the characters developing our modern railway world.  Is it because the world’s focus has moved on to digital technology and commercial entrepreneurs?  Or is it that Britain just imports all its stuff from elsewhere these days? 

 

Edit: from a Cornish perspective, I’d add Richard Trevithick to the list as well!

Recent history (and ignoring the term Genius, its as overused as Legend and hero), how about Terry Miller MBE?

 

Perhaps strangely in today's celebrity-conscious world, we don't have the high-profile characters in engineering because we acknowledge the whole team involved in the achievements, rather than focus on a single (often rather vain) lead individual?

  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/03/2021 at 15:36, Tony Wright said:

 

In case of the A2/3s he reverted to a round dome (even though the perforated steam collector was proven to be superior) and a flat cab front (why?). Even though the Peppercorn A1/A2 boiler was virtually the same as the Thompson A2/3 boiler (individual A2/2s, A2/3s, A1s and A2s carried both types), it reverted to the perforated steam collector, placed further back. 

 

...

 

The further forward dome resulted in water surging into it under heavy braking, and the 'V'-fronted cab (at least with regard to the spectacles) was far superior in reducing reflected glare. Yet, in his new construction A2/3s Thompson chose to discard the perforated steam collector and the 'V-fronted' cab, both reinstated by his successor. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Morning Tony and all,

 

I've read that a freak accident was the motivation for Thompson to dispense with V-fronted cabs. 

 

In the late '30s two A4s passed at speed on up / down expresses while one was picking up from a water trough. A sheet of water shattered the front spectacle glass of one of the engines which fatally injured an inspector riding on the A4's footplate, though driver and fireman were uninjured and able to bring the train to a safe stop. 

 

Thompson firmly believed the overspill would not have smashed the glass if the cab had been a flat-fronted type. Though, whether or not resolving the terms of this uncanny coincidence makes up for severely reduced nighttime visibility is of course up for debate.

 

I'll have a look for the source quote later after work, may well have been from a Cecil J. Allen book. 

 

Cheers,

 

Ollie

Edited by OliverBytham
clarify a sentence
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, bbishop said:

Andy, One hundred lines: Oliver Vaughan Snell Bulleid

 

The appointment of Bulleid was almost the final act of Sir Herbert Walker in 1937.  He was inherited by Gilbert Szlumper, who was General Manager for less than two years before being seconded to the War Office.  He was replaced by "Useless Eustace" Missenden.

 

The SR Chairmen were Robert Holland-Martin until 1944, then Eric Gore-Brown - both doubled barrelled bankers!  Nuff said?

 

Obviously Useless failed to manage Bulleid, resulting in 30 self-immolating Channel Packets and no less than 110 light pacifics, ok more reliable, but that many?   Szlumper was a bumptious little sh1t, but he could manage people, Useless was a pen pusher.

 

One can speculate what would have happened if Szlumper had stayed.  Would Bulleid have returned to Doncaster?  There would have been the first 20 Channel Packets, obviously, but thereafter?   What the Southern Railway really needed was a modern 4-6-0 on the H15 chassis and (I'm no engineer, so was it possible) the Schools chassis extended to a three cylinder 4-6-0.  So basically a Black 5 and a Jubilee.

 

Bill

 

But the point of Bulleid's Light Pacifics was to equip the Southern with an equivalent to the Black Five and the Jubilee, the V2, the Rebuilt Scot and the Castle. All in one package and with a firebox and boiler that could produce as much steam as anyone might need from the sort of "coal" that would unfortunately become the customary diet of steam locos post-war.

 

They largely delivered that, though both sizes would have been better with the valve gear based on Cock o'the North that Bulleid originally planned, but couldn't get made during the war. The chain driven gear was "Plan B" and, had it really been as bad as some maintain, why didn't BR change it on the last ten MNs and forty lightweights built? Presumably, improvements were made over time or the air-smoothed locos would have disappeared far sooner than they did. A handful remained in service right through to 1967, even though it would have been easy to bung a few of the early-withdrawn Rebuilts through Eastleigh in 1964. 

 

The West Countries also have the widest route availability of any engine in their power classification, and much less restrictive than any of the Urie-derived 4-6-0s.

 

It should also be noted that the de-bugging of the original design that made the Light Pacifics more reliable from new was the result of ongoing in-service development on their big sisters, resulting  in similar improvement to them as the successful modifications were applied retrospectively. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OliverBytham said:

 

Morning Tony and all,

 

I've read that a freak accident was the motivation for Thompson to dispense with V-fronted cabs. 

 

In the late '30s two A4s passed at speed on up / down expresses while one was picking up from a water trough. A sheet of water shattered the front spectacle glass of one of the engines which fatally injured an inspector riding on the A4's footplate, though driver and fireman were uninjured and able to bring the train to a safe stop. 

 

Thompson firmly believed the overspill would not have smashed the glass if the cab had been a flat-fronted type. Though, whether or not resolving the terms of this uncanny coincidence makes up for severely reduced nighttime visibility is of course up for debate.

 

I'll have a look for the source quote later after work, may well have been from a Cecil J. Allen book. 

 

Cheers,

 

Ollie

Thanks Ollie,

 

I think it lead to the spectacles being replaced with armoured Triplex glass. 

 

I'm not sure how a flat-fronted cab would have prevented such an accident. I would have thought it would have less deflective tendencies.

 

Anyway, the incident was unique, and the lack of internal reflection was a far safer option.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

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

Another request, please....................

 

61672.jpg.b05b59a77887dbdf7d2875d6faf07c8e.jpg

 

Anyone know where this is? 

 

Large buildings in the background and to the left, and carriage sidings to the right.

 

The loco is either shedded at Stratford or Ipswich (no date is given, though it's high summer - the train heating pipe at the front is missing) and it's clearly a GE-section service.

 

Many thanks in anticipation. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This delightful old K's ROD has just arrived through the post as a donation to CRUK (thanks Stewart)........................

 

1921558836_KsROD.jpg.65eb54c96cf679cf168ed411191d9868.jpg

 

Unsurprisingly, it doesn't run. I'll repair/rebuild it, fit new wheels, a new motor gearbox and paint/weather it. Then see what it's worth. 

 

I'm reminded of the K's ROD I built..........................

 

1051925140_O4363701.jpg.33dd167839775de4e8512e704cb8f842.jpg

 

Near on 50 years ago now, and still running on LB (though with no K's mechanical parts!). 

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2021 at 14:38, richard i said:

What about usa designers. The Pennsylvanian k4 was some of the inspiration for Gresley’s a1 pacific. Others went over too for ideas. Robinson for example is one. The USA had locos of any size long before the uk got round to them.

richard 

This is a bit late to the party, but "Yes" what about US designers? I don't know who designed the NYC Niagara S1b 4-8-4 steam locos but Alco built them in 1945 & they came to be considered as one of the most efficient steam locomotives ever, though like the BR 9Fs they too were a bit late to the party as the diesels took over in the USA. Nevertheless with 6,000 hp they ran for long stretches at 100 mph initially on New York to Chicago (928 miles) trains 6 days a week covering 26,000 miles a month. The NYC conducted very well executed tests comparing them against 2-unit & 3-unit E7 diesels & found that the overall costs were less than for the 2-unit E7s & the same as for the 3-unit E7s.

 

William580157415_nyc6000.jpg.26b1269648fe9a15f92e96330eb872a8.jpg

  • Like 10
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gr.king said:

Excuse the scepticism, but which features of the new arrival were you thinking of as "delightful"?

Good question.....................

 

It's certainly unique, in need of a lot of TLC (and a good scrub) and at least the wheels can be used to represent scrap. 

 

I rather 'delight' in resurrecting abandoned old locos like this, though you're right in your scepticism. 

 

Let's see what it looks like when I've finished.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Ollie,

 

I think it lead to the spectacles being replaced with armoured Triplex glass. 

 

I'm not sure how a flat-fronted cab would have prevented such an accident. I would have thought it would have less deflective tendencies.

 

Anyway, the incident was unique, and the lack of internal reflection was a far safer option.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Whilst unusual , this incident was not unique , I have read of other similar incidents including one on a Peppercorn pacific during the 1950's . Fortunately the fireman was firing at the time & thus escaped injury .

  The water would hit a flat fronted cab at a greater angle rather than head on . Thompson pressed Gresley into fitting armoured glass but when the A.2/3 was being designed this was not available , all supplies going to the armed forces .

   It must also be said that with the limited view through the spectacle plate most drivers leaned out of the cab to see .

                Ray 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Ollie,

 

I think it lead to the spectacles being replaced with armoured Triplex glass. 

 

I'm not sure how a flat-fronted cab would have prevented such an accident. I would have thought it would have less deflective tendencies.

 

Anyway, the incident was unique, and the lack of internal reflection was a far safer option.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 


Indeed, Tony. And O. S. Nock would’ve agreed...

 

The story and its aftermath are from his ‘The Gresley Pacifics’, not an Allen memoir as I misremembered earlier.

 

BB6BB4D1-F20F-4BC4-919C-FCA5C209889E.jpeg.9510d495aa7f5e24b5e58cfcc6ca95b5.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
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...