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.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks again Tony for everything, when I’m at my computer on Monday I’ll post up some photos. 

Send us some heat please! I can send you gallons of water!

See you soon mate!

Baz

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
3 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks again Tony for everything, when I’m at my computer on Monday I’ll post up some photos. 

It was our pleasure, Jesse.

 

It's always a most-entertaining time with you around.

 

If nothing else, it shows how genuine the friendships made in this great hobby are. Friendships based on mutual respect and in helping each other. As we observed, such a far cry from the critics who snipe away at any suggestion of 'improving things', safely behind the anonymity of their various 'user names' (none on here, of course) and never 'daring' to meet one face-to-face. Were any of those outraged-at-my-Modeller-piece present at the NEC last weekend? If so, none spoke to me. 

 

Please post the pictures and moving images next week. I'd like to see again your B16 in action - perhaps on Brighton Junction itself? Please let me know about the D2 as well, though that loco/tender drawbar might need altering. 

 

And please wish your mum a very happy birthday from us, and pass on our regards to all your family. 

 

All the best,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen & Ladies,

 

For an LSWR and DB aficionado, could someone explain the various O4 sub classes?  I think the O4/7 is the GCR locomotive with a Thompson boiler, but I could be very wrong! 

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Gentlemen & Ladies,

 

For an LSWR and DB aficionado, could someone explain the various O4 sub classes?  I think the O4/7 is the GCR locomotive with a Thompson boiler, but I could be very wrong! 

 

Bill

Sorry Bill,

 

The O4/7 is a Robinson loco with a modified Gresley O2 boiler.

 

Briefly, they are in BR days.

 

O4/1. Original GC 8K 2-8-0.

O4/2. O4/3 with lowered boiler fittings and cab.

O4/3. ROD-built locos with no vacuum brakes nor water scoop.

O4/5. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler and separate smokebox saddle.

O4/6. Rebuilt from O5 (a large boilered 2-8-0), retaining higher cab (63913-20 with side window cab).

O4/7. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler but retaining original GC smokebox.

O4/8. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with Thompson B1 boiler and Thompson side window cab.

O1. Almost complete rebuild (just retaining frames and tender) of Robinson 2-8-0 with outside valve gear, new cylinders, a B1 boiler and Thompson cab.

 

Beware, because at certain times some rebuilds were also rebuilt into O4/8s and O1s. .

 

In 1955 (prior to further rebuildings) there were 58 O1s, 60 O4/1s, 8 O4/2s, 107 O4/3s, 4 O4/5s, 13 O4/6s, 40 O4/7s and 34 O4/8s. 

 

In comparison by 1959 (when the types were still largely intact) there were 58 O1s, 52 O4/1s, 5 O4/2s, 60 O4/3s, 2 O4/5s, 11 O4/6s, 33 O4/7s and 96 O4/8s (the diminishing numbers in some sub-divisions are due to their being rebuilt into O4/8s; thus a rebuilding of a rebuild in some cases).

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

O4/1. Original GC 8K 2-8-0.

O4/2. O4/3 with lowered boiler fittings and cab.

O4/3. ROD-built locos with no vacuum brakes nor water scoop.

O4/5. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler and separate smokebox saddle.

O4/6. Rebuilt from O5 (a large boilered 2-8-0), retaining higher cab (63913-20 with side window cab).

O4/7. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with shortened Gresley O2 boiler but retaining original GC smokebox.

O4/8. Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with Thompson B1 boiler and Thompson side window cab.

... and just for completeness, 

O4/4 Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with full length Gresley O2 boiler, extended frames, side-window cab and separate smokebox saddle. Just 2 modified to O4/4 and both subsequently rebuilt. First to O1 in 1945 and the second (3882) to O4/8 in 1947. (Nobody ever mentions the O4/4s). It looked similar to the O4/5 but was longer.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Clem said:

... and just for completeness, 

O4/4 Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with full length Gresley O2 boiler, extended frames, side-window cab and separate smokebox saddle. Just 2 modified to O4/4 and both subsequently rebuilt. First to O1 in 1945 and the second (3882) to O4/8 in 1947. (Nobody ever mentions the O4/4s). It looked similar to the O4/5 but was longer.

Thanks Clem,

 

My interest, of course, is in BR days; by which time the O4/4 sub-division had gone. 

 

Didn't the one rebuilt to O4/8 retain the dip in its splashers towards the cab? 

 

Ah, those joys of 'loco-picking'!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Clem said:

... and just for completeness, 

O4/4 Robinson 2-8-0 rebuilt with full length Gresley O2 boiler, extended frames, side-window cab and separate smokebox saddle. Just 2 modified to O4/4 and both subsequently rebuilt. First to O1 in 1945 and the second (3882) to O4/8 in 1947. (Nobody ever mentions the O4/4s). It looked similar to the O4/5 but was longer.

And also a few engines had distinctive "Battleaxe"  driving wheel balance weights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those whose wheels at least had originally belonged to the second series of O5s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the GC 2-8-0s (and their derivatives), was there ever a more successful 2-8-0 in the history of this country's locos?

 

This question has been asked before, but I don't think so. 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding the GC 2-8-0s (and their derivatives), was there ever a more successful 2-8-0 in the history of this country's locos?

 

 

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

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding the GC 2-8-0s (and their derivatives), was there ever a more successful 2-8-0 in the history of this country's locos?

 

This question has been asked before, but I don't think so. 

 

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

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Thanks again Tony for everything, when I’m at my computer on Monday I’ll post up some photos. 

 

Was nice to meet you Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Didn't the one rebuilt to O4/8 retain the dip in its splashers towards the cab? 

Yes, it did. An interestingly slightly different subject for a model?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

Bill

  • Like 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

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

 

Indeed the 8F was very successful, though not as long lived.  The GCR 8K was introduced in 1911, the 8F was 24 years ‘newer’ being built from 1935 on.

 

My vote goes to the old lady...

Edited by Chamby
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Headstock
add info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the 8F didn't become a good engine until the LNER fitted it with the Merlin engine during the war. Doncaster built 8F's could out climb and out turn the LM originals.

  • Funny 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

 

Good evening Brian

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

Eric 

 

Hello Eric

 

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

 

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

 

Brian

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Killybegs said:

 

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

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

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

 

Hello Eric

 

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

 

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

 

Brian

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

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

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

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

 

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

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bbishop said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Bill

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

 

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

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

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

 

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

 

Brian

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.