Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

8 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Graham I want to reach for certain boxes with a B3, B7 ...

And I also have a small, but valued, list of folks who are interested in a B3/2 who are remaining remarkably patient ... for now ...

[2750Papyrus]

20 hours ago, SD85 said:

 

I think I remember reading in the book 'Under 10 CMEs' by E.A. Langridge that the L&YR was the most technologically advanced constituent of the LMS when it came to locomotive design

By co-incidence, I ordered both volumes of this work from Stenlake Publishing yesterday morning; they arrived today!

[Bernard Lamb]

10 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

 

 

The nearest I have to that colour scheme is a DMU.

Bernard

 

 

[Michael Edge]

The Millholme L&Y Dreadnought is a mixture of both types, not easy to build as either. This is a scratchbuilt one from 1995, only recently painted by Dave Studley. I've built all the other varieties of these 4-6-0s, including the original version but this is the only one I have digital photos of.

This is one of the ones which ran with a borrowed 8 wheel tender from an 0-8-0 - presumably for extra coal capacity, the L&Y and LNW were well provided with water troughs.

This is a 4-6-4T I built, mostly from my own etches.

[LNER4479]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

The nearest I have to that colour scheme is a DMU.

Bernard

 

 

Ah - Leipzig Gleiss 24, die Fliegender Hamburger. A most interesting exhibit. The very train type that Gresley and team rode on in 1934 ... and then decided they could do so much better with steam! The rest, as they say ...

[Compound2632]

11 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

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.

 

Indeed, nominal TE has to be treated with caution; I think you were party to a discussion a while back in relation to the calculation of LMS power classes. But it gives an indication and basically, as you say, higher pressure means more work can be got out of the steam, though at the expense of a heavier boiler (in the absence of any advance in materials technology - I'm not sure there was such between 1913 and 1927?

 

I can't recall seeing that about the 4-cylinder layout before - I shall have to go and re-read LMS Locomotive Profiles No. 11! But it does illustrate a general point about the way drawing offices worked - no locomotive was designed from scratch - anything suitable or adaptable that already existed was used. Wasn't the Royal Scot boiler, G10¼S, designed to be constructed using the flanging blocks for the Lickey Banker boiler?

 

@Ian Rathbone commented on the dinky tender attached to the Aspinall High Flyer. Apart from the L&Y's short express runs not requiring huge amounts of coal, I suspect that turntable sizes may have been a factor, as with Stephen Holden's GER 4-6-0.

[Compound2632]

Just now, LNER4479 said:

Ah - Leipzig Gleiss 24, die Fliegender Hamburger. A most interesting exhibit. The very train type that Gresley and team rode on in 1934 ... and then decided they could do so much better with steam! The rest, as they say ...

 

As I understand it, attempted to demonstrate that similar performance could be achieved with existing equipment, the LNER being too impoverished to afford such fancy new technology.

[Northmoor]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I can't recall seeing that about the 4-cylinder layout before - I shall have to go and re-read LMS Locomotive Profiles No. 11! But it does illustrate a general point about the way drawing offices worked - no locomotive was designed from scratch - anything suitable or adaptable that already existed was used. Wasn't the Royal Scot boiler, G10¼S, designed to be constructed using the flanging blocks for the Lickey Banker boiler?

This is obviously good engineering practice, because if something already exists in the works, you've probably already got the moulds, dies, jigs, fixtures or press tooling required to make it.  The manpower and time required to get yourself into a position to make the first part of it, is what gets engineering projects an unfair reputation when they are cancelled ("They spent a third of the budget and hadn't completed one of the cars/trains/ships/aircraft").

[MJI]

The Germans did state once, that they were tempted to go for Mallards record with their high speed steam loco.

 

The NRM did comment to go for it as the A4 centre big end overheating was solved.

[2750Papyrus]

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As I understand it, attempted to demonstrate that similar performance could be achieved with existing equipment, the LNER being too impoverished to afford such fancy new technology.

As I understand, the standard of accommodation compared to LNER coaches and the lack of catering facilities were major considerations.

[LNER4479]

2 minutes ago, 2750Papyrus said:

As I understand, the standard of accommodation compared to LNER coaches and the lack of catering facilities were major considerations.

... as well as the uncomfortable, noisy ride.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, 2750Papyrus said:

As I understand, the standard of accommodation compared to LNER coaches and the lack of catering facilities were major considerations.

 

That too. The LNER's demo train, made up of standard stock, was lightweight compared to the run of East Coast and West Riding expresses: Nock says, corridor first, kitchen first diner, corridor brake composite. (Well, at least that shows you don't need a shed the size of Tony's to model a genuine East Coast express!) He also states that because of various speed restrictions, the manufacturers of German train could not propose as fast a schedule between London and Newcastle as that being achieved between Berlin and Hamburg. [O.S. Nock, Speed Records on Britain's Railways (David & Charles, 1971).]

[Darryl Tooley]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

the LNER being too impoverished to afford such fancy new technology

The LNER could usually be relied on to find money for the high-profile big earners.

 

According to his presidential address to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in 1936, Gresley approached the German manufacturers with full details of the gradients, curves and speed restrictions of the line from King's Cross to Newcastle.

 

The best time they could come up with was four and a half hours; the 'Silver Jubilee' did it in four, and in, as noted above, rather more comfort.

[LNER4479]

All this (fascinating) talk of 4-cylinder 4-6-0s caused me to compile the following list:

 

British 4-cylinder 4-6-0 designs

1903 – LNWR ‘1400’ Compound

1905 – LSWR F13

1906 - GWR ‘Star’

1908 - L&Y ‘Dreadnought’

1911 - LSWR ‘Paddlebox’

1913 - LNWR ‘Claughton’

1916 - GS&WR 400 (Ireland)

1917 - GCR 9P (LNER B3)

1921 - GCR 9Q (LNER B7)

1923 - GWR ‘Castle’

1926 - SR ‘Lord Nelson’

1927 - GWR ‘King’

 

Have I missed any obvious ones (ie complete classes, rather than 'one off's (such as LNWR 'Prospero' or LSWR E14)?

 

I think a list in date order is instructive as it indicates the opportunity engineers had (that they might not have taken!) to be influenced by other designs.

 

I'm also aware, as already mentioned, of the many rebuilds, developments, further builds etc, but just trying to keep it simple as a summary list.

Edited April 10, 2021 by LNER4479
GS&WR 400 added to list

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

All this (fascinating) talk of 4-cylinder 4-6-0s caused me to compile the following list:

 

British 4-cylinder 4-6-0 designs

1903 – LNWR ‘1400’ Compound

1905 – LSWR F13

1906 - GWR ‘Star’

1908 - L&Y ‘Dreadnought’

1911 - LSWR ‘Paddlebox’

1913 - LNWR ‘Claughton’

1917 - GCR 9P (LNER B3)

1921 - GCR 9Q (LNER B7)

1923 - GWR ‘Castle’

1926 - SR ‘Lord Nelson’

1927 - GWR ‘King’

 

Have I missed any obvious ones (ie complete classes, rather than 'one off's (such as LNWR 'Prospero' or LSWR E14)?

 

I think a list in date order is instructive as it indicates the opportunity engineers had (that they might not have taken!) to be influenced by other designs.

 

I'm also aware, as already mentioned, of the many rebuilds, developments, further builds etc, but just trying to keep it simple as a summary list.

 

I think you should really list the 1919-24 Dreadnoughts as a separate class. Either that, or subsume the Castles under the Star heading!

 

But really at the head of the list should be Alfred de Glehn's compound 4-6-0s, which along with his 4-4-2s, were hugely influential. He was a British locomotive engineer, born and bred in Sydenham and with a sister who married a Bishop and was a champion of women's rights and education.

 

Was it the E14 that Urie said was the only locomotive he'd come across that wouldn't roll away under its own weight on a 1:100 gradient? (Presumably he made the remark after 1912; also, how did he know? Not just about the E14 but other classes?)

Edited April 10, 2021 by Compound2632

[bbishop]

6 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

All this (fascinating) talk of 4-cylinder 4-6-0s caused me to compile the following list:

 

British 4-cylinder 4-6-0 designs

1903 – LNWR ‘1400’ Compound

1905 – LSWR F13

1906 - GWR ‘Star’

1908 - L&Y ‘Dreadnought’

1911 - LSWR ‘Paddlebox’

1913 - LNWR ‘Claughton’

1917 - GCR 9P (LNER B3)

1921 - GCR 9Q (LNER B7)

1923 - GWR ‘Castle’

1926 - SR ‘Lord Nelson’

1927 - GWR ‘King’

 

Have I missed any obvious ones (ie complete classes, rather than 'one off's (such as LNWR 'Prospero' or LSWR E14)?

 

I

 

I can think of one, but being of evil persuasion can anyone get it?  Bill

[MJI]

I will admit out of all of those I like the Castles most.

[MJI]

2 minutes ago, bbishop said:

 

I can think of one, but being of evil persuasion can anyone get it?  Bill

 

No but I can think of a 6 cylinder one

[LNER4479]

It's got me wondering if he's going down the alternative technology route ...

[MJI]

LMS Garratt oh and LNER Garratt was also a 6

[LNER4479]

.. but not a 4-6-0!

 

How many 'cylinders' did GT3 have?

[Bernard Lamb]

40 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Ah - Leipzig Gleiss 24, die Fliegender Hamburger. A most interesting exhibit. The very train type that Gresley and team rode on in 1934 ... and then decided they could do so much better with steam! The rest, as they say ...

I have never had a chance to ride in it.

I have only ever used DMUs around Leipzig in the form of the blood blisters aka piglet carriers that ran from the platforms to the right that are now part of the car park.  Now they were noisy and  uncomfortable.

Bernard

[Mike 84C]

Calderwood, one of my favourite model railways. I could spend far to long watching the operations.

[LNER4479]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think you should really list the 1919-24 Dreadnoughts as a separate class. Either that, or subsume the Castles under the Star heading!

As I say, I was trying to keep it simple. I suspect you could probably make a similar case for the later build 'Claughtons'. C P Atkins certainly talks about them separately, in terms of the larger-boilered ones. Then there's the experimentation with poppet valves on the 'Claughtons' and the LNER B3s (all designed to improve performance) and so it goes on.

GWR 4-6-0s all the same anyway. It just depends how far away they are ...

 

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But really at the head of the list should be Alfred de Glehn's compound 4-6-0s, which along with his 4-4-2s, were hugely influential. He was a British locomotive engineer, born and bred in Sydenham and with a sister who married a Bishop and was a champion of women's rights and education.

 

Well, indeed. I nearly made mention of this, in the sense that designers could be - and indeed were - influenced by developments in other countries, including North America as well as mainland Europe. For me at least, the name 'de Glehn' is forever associated with front bogie design which migrated into certain notable British loco classes ...

[Michael Edge]

57 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed, nominal TE has to be treated with caution; I think you were party to a discussion a while back in relation to the calculation of LMS power classes. But it gives an indication and basically, as you say, higher pressure means more work can be got out of the steam, though at the expense of a heavier boiler (in the absence of any advance in materials technology - I'm not sure there was such between 1913 and 1927?

 

I can't recall seeing that about the 4-cylinder layout before - I shall have to go and re-read LMS Locomotive Profiles No. 11! But it does illustrate a general point about the way drawing offices worked - no locomotive was designed from scratch - anything suitable or adaptable that already existed was used. Wasn't the Royal Scot boiler, G10¼S, designed to be constructed using the flanging blocks for the Lickey Banker boiler?

 

@Ian Rathbone commented on the dinky tender attached to the Aspinall High Flyer. Apart from the L&Y's short express runs not requiring huge amounts of coal, I suspect that turntable sizes may have been a factor, as with Stephen Holden's GER 4-6-0.

Not the cylinder arrangement but the rockers for the inside valves were taken directly from the L&Y 4-6-0s after going down the road four sets of valve gear in the Princesses and trying out the Swindon arrangement with 6205.

L&Y tenders always looked small, turntable length would have been an important consideration but the real difference was that they had water troughs every 30 miles or so over the whole system.