Wright writes.....

[Compound2632]

37 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

A survey in 1930 showed that the Hughes 4-6-0s 'enjoyed' the highest incidence of hot boxes of any major LMS passenger design, with on average on casualty per 38,600 miles run compared to 133,000 miles by the new 'Royal Scots'.

(the account highlights that it was the intermediate (ie middle) boxes which were most at risk - presumably more of a 'pain' to remove for repair?)

 

That's reported in Jennison's Patriot book - the source being a memorandum of Nov 1931 from E.S. Cox, then a Mechanical Inspector, to his boss, S.J. Symes, the Locomotive Assistant to the CME. Cox reports the catalogue of defects mentioned but concludes "Apart from the above, the engines give good results and are especially suitable for heavily graded sections. Steaming is good and a trip made on No. 10462 showed that they have good riding qualities."

 

But isn't it interesting that Cox's investigations took place in 1931, prompted by the incidence of hot boxes in 1930 (lowest in miles run per hot box amongst principal passenger classes), by which time the class had been at work on the WCML for nearly a decade? 

 

As to comparison with the Claughtons, back in July 1922 the General Manager had reported to the Rolling Stock Committtee that "experiments had been made recently with engines built at Horwich which were now taking trains of over 400 tons weight between Crewe and Carlisle without difficulty" - a weak bridge at Wolverton prevented them being used into Euston. When the Claughton type "was first projected, it was thought that they would haul , without difficulty, trains of up to 440 tons and the traffic plans were based accordingly. Unfortunately, these anticipations were never realised ..." Of course his optimistic hope in the Class 8s was not entirely borne out by events, either. The big concern was to eliminate the double heading that had become endemic on the WCML. (Ironic, that, given that double heading is popularly thought of as a Midland small-engine vice!) 

 

[Jennison, op. cit., p. 3]

 

The Royal Scots were the answer, at least for a while; they were an omnium gatherum of best practice, welded into a coherent whole by that much-maligned Derby LDO.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Compound2632

[Tony Wright]

44 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

I have a bit of a soft spot for the L&Y 'Dreadnoughts', having built one. I agree that their use over the WCML 'big hill' is indeed a fascinating part of the early LMS story (not forgetting that new build Compounds were also in the mix). However, I would offer this from C.P.Atkins 'West Coast 4-6-0s at work':

 

'The last 20 4-6-0s (10455-10474) were sent new to Carlisle Upperby, where they remained until 1932-35. With their smaller coupled wheels, larger diameter boilers and generally more up-to-date design, the Hughes 4-6-0s should have put the 'Claughtons' in the shade north of Crewe. In reality, [they] barely measured up to the 'Claughtons' and suffered from similar ills for slightly different reasons.

 

'Long non-stop runs had been unknown on the old LYR and the lubrication arrangements ... were simply not up to the long hard slog over the Westmorland fells (there's then a bit comparing axlebox dimensions which appear to have been broadly similar). A survey in 1930 showed that the Hughes 4-6-0s 'enjoyed' the highest incidence of hot boxes of any major LMS passenger design, with on average on casualty per 38,600 miles run compared to 133,000 miles by the new 'Royal Scots'.

(the account highlights that it was the intermediate (ie middle) boxes which were most at risk - presumably more of a 'pain' to remove for repair?)

 

'Steaming, as in the 'Claughtons', could be erratic due to ingress of air into the built up smokebox, which rested upon a fabricated saddle. The breeches pipe, which conducted the exhaust steam to the blastpipe nozzle, were each secured to the base of the smokebox by only four studs, With steam shut off, smokebox char could become drawn into the cylinders with unpleasant results.

 

'As in the 'Claughtons' also, performance and efficiency would noticeably fall as mileage advanced since last shopping, again due to piston valve design. Horwich piston valves incorporated a Hughes-patented compression release mechanism within their heads which each incorporated several small steel balls. These wore into irregular shapes over a period of time resulting in very severe wastage of steam. In the 1930s these were replaced on several engines by new-style piston valves with six narrow rings.'

 

As written, not a flattering account! And I think gives an indication of the sort of situation Stanier walked into in 1932. I would however be interested to know if you consider the above to be accurate / factual ... or not?(!) Genuinely interested to know. 

 

Irrespective, I do have another 'Dreadnought' kit in stock and, if I ever find enough hours in the day, plan to build it to run alongside the Claughton we already have running (somewhat noisily!) on Shap as part of the projected 1930s procession of trains.

I'm glad I got that 'Claughton' running better Graham,

 

But I couldn't 'shut it up' I'm afraid. That said, the easiest way to 'quieten' a loco down is to run it at a packed show. It's amazing how much sweeter they are in those circumstances.........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony 

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, Ray Flintoft said:

The prototype was rebuilt by ET  & the class was part of his standard range . The production batch had a different (4.200 gall) tender  , a cut out front end , a different arrangement of mechanical lubricators & a single slidebar . Sounds a lot but actually only minor ; I always credit Thompson with the K.1 .

   Incidentally , Tony, this was to replace the J.39 which was not that successful  , with high maintenance costs , heavy front axlebox wear & a valve gear which regularly tied itself in knots . The J.11/3 was for lighter goods work & excursion traffic  .

  One point regarding the conjugated valve gear . Whilst in good order it did a very good job , but  keeping it in that condition had a cost imperative . It is notable that neither Peppercorn nor Harrison were prepared to use it in future construction .

                               Ray .

According to Jerry Fiennes, Harrison was against the 'Deltics'.

 

That being the case, I'm not sure I have the highest opinion of him.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Just this morning I posted shots of Kirkies for sale.

 

I can now report, they've all been sold! 

 

Many thanks. 

[drmditch]

1 hour ago, Ray Flintoft said:

The prototype was rebuilt by ET  & the class was part of his standard range . The production batch had a different (4.200 gall) tender  , a cut out front end , a different arrangement of mechanical lubricators & a single slidebar . Sounds a lot but actually only minor ; I always credit Thompson with the K.1 .

   Incidentally , Tony, this was to replace the J.39 which was not that successful  , with high maintenance costs , heavy front axlebox wear & a valve gear which regularly tied itself in knots . The J.11/3 was for lighter goods work & excursion traffic  .

  One point regarding the conjugated valve gear . Whilst in good order it did a very good job , but  keeping it in that condition had a cost imperative . It is notable that neither Peppercorn nor Harrison were prepared to use it in future construction .

                               Ray .

 

Please could you quote your sources for this view of the J39s?

Everything I have read suggests that they were powerful and useful engines, thus leading to their use on services for which an 0-6-0 would not have been the best vehicle, and leading to excessive wear in the front axleboxes. The valve gear, although drawn at Darlington, was derived from a mixture of pre-grouping practice. I understand that it was influenced by GC practice (as in the A5s).

(This is largely based on RCTS Green Books)

 

One aspect of LNER three cylinder design which has not been discussed above is that Gresley preferred  to avoid a divided drive. This would seem to be very sensible to me, but as with all engineering design lead to other compromises.

 

I don't want to spend time looking this up at the moment (my soldering iron is on and I have connections to make), but can anyone think of any other engineering school (other than the NER and Raven)  who used consolidated drive for multi-cylinder locomotives?

 

[Tony Wright]

I've looked through my immediate photographic archive, and I've found one picture of a 'Claughton'.

 

 

Built from a DJH kit, I believe this was the last survivor. The 'Derby' smokebox door did nothing for its appearance in my view. 

 

It was made by a friend, and brought along to run on LB in 2015. How time flies!

 

I've built two 'Claughtons' from DJH kits in the past, but any shots of those are on film. Also on film are two Gauge 1 'Claughtons' in the Waterman Collection. 

 

I cannot find a shot of a model 'Dreadnought'.  

Edited April 9, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

Having said in my last post, I can't find a shot of a Lancs & Yorks Hughes 4-6-0 (or a tank version), I've found some shots depicting L&Y subject matter.

 

Scenes on Calderwood....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And on Ogden Fold..............

 

 

 

 

 

Regular readers on here might remember the L&Y 0-6-0 I've recently built for Geoff Haynes.

 

 

Geoff has completed it mechanically and it's now being painted in full L&Y regalia.

 

I'll post shots on here when it's finished.

 

 

[PupCam]

2 hours ago, Ray Flintoft said:

Whilst in good order it did a very good job , but  keeping it in that condition had a cost imperative

Would there not also have been a cost imperative in maintaining a complete extra set of valve gear in good condition?   

I'm sure there would, although of course the unanswered question (and probably unanswerable at this point) is which was the most significant?

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

I cannot find a shot of a model 'Dreadnought'.  

If I may be so bold?

 

 

I built this about 20 years ago from the Millholme kit.

 

 

I ended up scratchbuilding the tender as the intended owner wanted the loco in original L&Y condition.

 

My late stepfather went on the last run of the class, Blackpool-York and return with 50455 on 1st July 1951.

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by LNER4479

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've looked through my immediate photographic archive, and I've found one picture of a 'Claughton'.

 

 

built from a DJH kit, I believe this was the last survivor. The 'Derby' smokebox door did nothing for its appearance in my view. 

 

It was made by a friend, and brought along to run on LB in 2015. How time flies!

 

I've built two 'Claughtons' from DJH kits in the past, but any shots of those are on film. Also on film are two Gauge 1 'Claughtons' in the Waterman Collection. 

 

I cannot find a shot of a model 'Dreadnought'.  

That photo immediately brought to mind the old engineering/aeronautical adage that "if it looks right, it is right". 

 

On that basis, I consider the Claughton didn't, and wasn't!

 

John

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've looked through my immediate photographic archive, and I've found one picture of a 'Claughton'.

 

built from a DJH kit, I believe this was the last survivor. The 'Derby' smokebox door did nothing for its appearance in my view.  

 

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

That photo immediately brought to mind the old engineering/aeronautical adage that "if it looks right, it is right". 

 

On that basis, I consider the Claughton didn't, and wasn't!

 

That's one of the 20 class members fitted with a G9½S boiler in 1927 in an attempt to improve their performance - they were of larger diameter but shorter than the originals; the key feature however was that they were set to 200 psi rather than the 175 psi of the originals, giving a 16% increase in nominal tractive effort. This boiler was also used on the Patriots, which of course started out as rather nominal rebuilds of Claughtons. So it may not look right, but it was better.

 

The original Claughton boiler gave the engines a leaner look but reputedly what Bowen Cooke originally intended was something more on the scale of the G9½S boiler, only to be turned down by the civil engineer who was only interested in dead weight rather than the dynamic forces imposed on the track; the 4-cylinder Claughton was far better balanced than the George the Fifth class, which were routinely wreaking havoc on "the finest permanent way in the world".

[Chas Levin]

On 08/04/2021 at 10:19, Tony Wright said:

Some interesting new titles for review in BRM in a month's time...........................

 

Hello Tony, I know you're going to be reviewing these in BRM so please escuse me if this is a cheeky question - please feel free to tell me to buy the magazine! - but is the L&M loco book intended as a coffee-table picture book type (no disrespect intended), or is it more at the scholarly end?

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello Tony, I know you're going to be reviewing these in BRM so please escuse me if this is a cheeky question - please feel free to tell me to buy the magazine! - but is the L&M loco book intended as a coffee-table picture book type (no disrespect intended), or is it more at the scholarly end?

Good evening Chas,

 

It's not big enough for a coffee table book (by that, I mean where one screws four legs to a volume and uses it as a table), and it's certainly not a picture book. 

 

I've only just dipped into it so far, but it's certainly a lengthy read, and it's printed on the best quality gloss stock. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chas Levin]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Chas,

 

It's not big enough for a coffee table book (by that, I mean where one screws four legs to a volume and uses it as a table), and it's certainly not a picture book. 

 

I've only just dipped into it so far, but it's certainly a lengthy read, and it's printed on the best quality gloss stock. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony - sounds like I'll have to pick up a copy... and I'll have to find something else for that coffee table!

[Gibbo675]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

.................they were of larger diameter but shorter than the originals; the key feature however was that they were set to 200 psi rather than the 175 psi of the originals, giving a 16% increase in nominal tractive effort.

Hi Stephen,

 

The increase in boiler pressure is more to do with the volume of energy contained within the head of steam created by the increase in temperature due to the higher pressure. Tractive effort is a slippery subject once the locomotive is underway and is dependant not just upon boiler pressure but vagaries of cut off and speed with the added consideration of regulator opening.

 

H=E+PV.

 

As for the Lanky Dreadnoughts the cylinder arrangement was used for the big lizzies in 1937 so they can't have been that bad in concept.

 

Gibbo.

[Shaw_Thing_M8]

8 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Sleek, green and very fast and also associated with the eastern part of the country.

Not an A4 but the East German pacific 18201. 

It was built in the early 1960s mainly from various left over parts. I once said cobbled together and upset somebody, but basically that is what happened regarding its birth.

It was built to test the performance of high speed rolling stock, in particular the braking systems being developed for them. It was based at the test plant in Halle but did work normal services when not required for test work.

For many years it was the fastest steam locomotive in the world in respect of permitted top speed.

AFAIK it is out of use at present due to being out of boiler certification.

In the 1980s a delegation from Halle test plant visited the UK to discuss their projects.

My wife comes from Leipzig which is very near to Halle and she was invited along, not in an official capacity but just to make the East Germans feel at ease with a person who could speak the local dialect.

Bernard

 

 

 

 

 

As nice as 18 201 is (18 314 is very nice also), I much prefer how it looked as originally built.

It's a pity the black and white photo can't illustrate the gorgeous ivory/violet/silver livery 61 002 (and 61 001) wore before the war.

 

Tilman

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Shaw_Thing_M8

[Ian Rathbone]

An interesting L & Y High Flyer, 7mm scale built entirely from card apart from mechanical parts and a few castings. (Builder not known). I think the tiny tender looks silly.

Ian R

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

May we see and learn more of the layout please, Mike?

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

Tractive effort is a slippery subject

[Woodcock29]

Dreadnoughts - I've built two one for myself and one for a mate which I've now got back when he started selling up. Both are from the Millholme kit which I discovered was a bit of a hybrid. Its somewhere between the last 20 and the previous batch in loco length. The last 20 had longer front frames and a longer wheelbase bogie. I can't remember which bogie was actually in the kit. The w/m cab roof suited the last 20 as it was more angular at the sides. The boiler was too short and also too small in diameter so I substituted a piece of PVC water pipe which was closer to the correct diameter - this meant widening the firebox to match. I built mine as the earlier version with shorter front frames and short bogie and made a plasticard cab roof and new cab front - an interesting exercise as I had to form and maintain the sharpish arc at the sides the. Both needed new front frame sections. I hope the following two unpainted models show the differences. Romford didn't make 25mm diameter drivers so I used 24mm.

I didn't have enough clearance to fit the front guard irons on the longer frame loco.

Now painted versions - on my short frame version I ran in to trouble with the HMRS transfers - much of which was written about recently on here l think. I ended up 'sticking' them on with varnish - a very old method. They were Methfix but which failed to adhere. Not as neat as I would have liked. Note the different livery styles (lettering) between the two models.

 

 

I also built a DJH Claughton for the same friend- which I've also now got back. Seen below on his layout.

Its a good thing I've got an LMS section on my layout - even if that part is just a tail chaser! 

Andrew

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Shaw_Thing_M8 said:

 

As nice as 18 201 is (18 314 is very nice also), I much prefer how it looked as originally built.

It's a pity the black and white photo can't illustrate the gorgeous ivory/violet/silver livery 61 002 (and 61 001) wore before the war.

 

Tilman

 

How many slices would it toast at a time?

Edited April 10, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Shaw_Thing_M8]

3 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

How many slices would it toast at a time?

 

Enough to feed Henschel's workforce, getting the butter was the hard part

[LNER4479]

6 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Dreadnoughts - I've built two one for myself and one for a mate which I've now got back when he started selling up. Both are from the Millholme kit which I discovered was a bit of a hybrid. Its somewhere between the last 20 and the previous batch in loco length. The last 20 had longer front frames and a longer wheelbase bogie. I can't remember which bogie was actually in the kit. The w/m cab roof suited the last 20 as it was more angular at the sides. The boiler was too short and also too small in diameter so I substituted a piece of PVC water pipe which was closer to the correct diameter - this meant widening the firebox to match. I built mine as the earlier version with shorter front frames and short bogie and made a plasticard cab roof and new cab front - an interesting exercise as I had to form and maintain the sharpish arc at the sides the. Both needed new front frame sections. I hope the following two unpainted models show the differences. Romford didn't make 25mm diameter drivers so I used 24mm.

I didn't have enough clearance to fit the front guard irons on the longer frame loco.

Now painted versions - on my short frame version I ran in to trouble with the HMRS transfers - much of which was written about recently on here l think. I ended up 'sticking' them on with varnish - a very old method. They were Methfix but which failed to adhere. Not as neat as I would have liked. Note the different livery styles (lettering) between the two models.

 

 

I also built a DJH Claughton for the same friend- which I've also now got back. Seen below on his layout.

Its a good thing I've got an LMS section on my layout - even if that part is just a tail chaser! 

Andrew

 

 

Andrew, they're lovely! Makes me want to reach for that Millholme box, but I mustn't ... I really mustn't ... mustn't ... aaarghhh ....

[MarkC]

7 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Andrew, they're lovely! Makes me want to reach for that Millholme box, but I mustn't ... I really mustn't ... mustn't ... aaarghhh ....

Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said that the best way to resist temptation was to yield to it? 

[Woodcock29]

21 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Andrew, they're lovely! Makes me want to reach for that Millholme box, but I mustn't ... I really mustn't ... mustn't ... aaarghhh ....

Graham I want to reach for certain boxes with a B3, B7 and also a Louth Howlden Quad.....

.... but I have higher priorities this year as we're hosting our national BRMA Convention here in Adelaide and there is other modelling to be done before that! Aaarghhh....