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 Gold
4 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

A simple question, not sure if on here is the appropriate  place to ask.

 

How heavy do you think a coach should be weighted? I've bought a bunch of Hornby Railroad Mk1s, which I feel will pass muster as layout coaches with a bit of titivating, and of course replacement of the horrible plastic wheels. But they seem awfully light and sorely in need of some extra ballast.

 

Chris

How much weight to add really comes down to matching them to what they'll be running with. Consistency is much more important than attempting to find an ideal weight.

 

The better coaches from Hornby and Bachmann tend to scale out at 150-165 grams. I tend to reduce that on those formed in longer sets to lessen the likelihood that only one or two of my locos will be up to the task. In most cases, running quality doesn't seem to be adversely affected until weight drops below 100 grams, but uniformity is the real key to reliable performance.

 

One oddity I have encountered, but only with Bachmann Mk1s (so far) has been that, irrespective of weight, they became a significantly easier load when fitted with the old style Jackson/Romford wheels in place of Bachmann's metal ones.

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
43 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

One oddity I have encountered, but only with Bachmann Mk1s (so far) has been that, irrespective of weight, they became a significantly easier load when fitted with the old style Jackson/Romford wheels in place of Bachmann's metal ones.

 

John

 


I’ve come across a lot of Bachmann wheels that have a very rough surface finish. Possibly that may have something to do with the issue. 

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

6 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

A simple question, not sure if on here is the appropriate  place to ask.

 

How heavy do you think a coach should be weighted? I've bought a bunch of Hornby Railroad Mk1s, which I feel will pass muster as layout coaches with a bit of titivating, and of course replacement of the horrible plastic wheels. But they seem awfully light and sorely in need of some extra ballast.

 

Chris

 

I'm a rebel in that I believe in as heavy as possible, given the pulling, or hill climbing restraints. I also believe in solid engineering and thorough testing.  So along with heavy, I build in working equalization and ball bearings to both stick to the track and reduce the friction for smooth and dependable starting as well as running.

 

 

 

The videos show the running at a prototypically exact speed of 120 mph, with a RTR (Atlas) locomotive and 8 cars weighted to 250 gms each.  I added the reverse testing to make sure the cars nearest the locomotive stood up to the worst case forces involved.  The bogies are low volume "manufactured" by me to my own design. The track holding is Proto:87, rather than ordinary HO. And of course Proto-87 is 7/8 ths  a finer scale than even P4. 

 

So I'm kind of puzzled about the several recent comments here in the apparent poor running of P4 layouts at exhibitions.  To my mind there is no reason for either derailments or stalling on a properly engineered model railway. The trains shown have never derailed unexpectedly.  (or at all that I can remember).

 

I do run my (nostalgic) 4mm models on the same track, also fitted with Protro:87 or P4 wheelsets, which I have named the "00-P standard".  (Effectively P4 - 2.33 so as to match 00's 16.5 mm gauge ).  It's certainly an advantage to have P4 looking wheelsets for the normal sideways viewing, without all the hassle of hand laying all the track and trying to fit all the working  valve gear between scale width cylinders and splashers. But I don't have enough 4mm conversions done yet to make the equivalent videos. If I gewt more time this year, I'll post updates.

 

Andy

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

8 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

A simple question, not sure if on here is the appropriate  place to ask.

 

How heavy do you think a coach should be weighted? I've bought a bunch of Hornby Railroad Mk1s, which I feel will pass muster as layout coaches with a bit of titivating, and of course replacement of the horrible plastic wheels. But they seem awfully light and sorely in need of some extra ballast.

 

Chris

I think several have answered your question, Chris,

 

In my own case, though none of my carriages rides badly, wobble or derail (isn't that a hostage to fortune statement?), the most-stable are the kit-built ones; that is those made from brass/nickel silver/white metal/wood (yes, the older ones have wooden roofs!), running in pin-point bearings in white metal bogies. Some are twice the weight of a plastic RTR carriage. Up to a point (obviously), the heavier the better. 

 

However, this good-riding comes at a 'price'. Don't expect a plastic-bodied RTR loco (steam-outline) to pull a full train of such weighty cars. 

 

And, from my experience of watching/photographing Ufford all those years ago, don't expect any of the kit-built locos I saw (no doubt commissioned at a high-price!) to pull anything!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I'm a rebel in that I believe in as heavy as possible, given the pulling, or hill climbing restraints. I also believe in solid engineering and thorough testing.  So along with heavy, I build in working equalization and ball bearings to both stick to the track and reduce the friction for smooth and dependable starting as well as running.

 

 

 

The videos show the running at a prototypically exact speed of 120 mph, with a RTR (Atlas) locomotive and 8 cars weighted to 250 gms each.  I added the reverse testing to make sure the cars nearest the locomotive stood up to the worst case forces involved.  The bogies are low volume "manufactured" by me to my own design. The track holding is Proto:87, rather than ordinary HO. And of course Proto-87 is 7/8 ths  a finer scale than even P4. 

 

So I'm kind of puzzled about the several recent comments here in the apparent poor running of P4 layouts at exhibitions.  To my mind there is no reason for either derailments or stalling on a properly engineered model railway. The trains shown have never derailed unexpectedly.  (or at all that I can remember).

 

I do run my (nostalgic) 4mm models on the same track, also fitted with Protro:87 or P4 wheelsets, which I have named the "00-P standard".  (Effectively P4 - 2.33 so as to match 00's 16.5 mm gauge ).  It's certainly an advantage to have P4 looking wheelsets for the normal sideways viewing, without all the hassle of hand laying all the track and trying to fit all the working  valve gear between scale width cylinders and splashers. But I don't have enough 4mm conversions done yet to make the equivalent videos. If I gewt more time this year, I'll post updates.

 

Andy

Very impressive Andy,

 

No running problems there.

 

I must admit I've never tried propelling a full rake of carriages at high speed on LB (there is no need), but those from the kick back sidings come out without any trouble.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the mention of a photo of 60518 Tehran at Knebworth on a train of Presflos in 1961, there is a photo in The RCTS Photo Archive  of 60518 on Kings X Shed on 19/2/61. Although York based Pacifics were common at Kings X, on this occasion 60518 is in a clean condition, unusually for a York based Pacific, and I wonder if this might be on the occasion of the initial trip on The Anglo Scottish Cement Working as the date is around the time when the trial would have taken place. It would be useful to know if it is possible to identify the length of the train behind 60518 Tehran at Knebworth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kevin Roche said:

Further to the mention of a photo of 60518 Tehran at Knebworth on a train of Presflos in 1961, there is a photo in The RCTS Photo Archive  of 60518 on Kings X Shed on 19/2/61. Although York based Pacifics were common at Kings X, on this occasion 60518 is in a clean condition, unusually for a York based Pacific, and I wonder if this might be on the occasion of the initial trip on The Anglo Scottish Cement Working as the date is around the time when the trial would have taken place. It would be useful to know if it is possible to identify the length of the train behind 60518 Tehran at Knebworth.

 

Good evening Kevin,

 

I can't upload the photo, it needs scanning. Some information may be of interest, The locomotive looks to be very clean and shiny, the train itself is rather disappointing given all the fuss about the muscle of different locomotives working the services. Are Presflos particularly heavy? The train is formed of twelve or possibly thirteen wagons and a guards van, the angle is quite tight. The only fly in the ointment is that a closer look at the photo would indicate that the locomotive is 60513 Dante. I can't quite read the shed code but Yeadon says Peterborough New England at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I think several have answered your question, Chris,

 

In my own case, though none of my carriages rides badly, wobble or derail (isn't that a hostage to fortune statement?), the most-stable are the kit-built ones; that is those made from brass/nickel silver/white metal/wood (yes, the older ones have wooden roofs!), running in pin-point bearings in white metal bogies. Some are twice the weight of a plastic RTR carriage. Up to a point (obviously), the heavier the better. 

 

However, this good-riding comes at a 'price'. Don't expect a plastic-bodied RTR loco (steam-outline) to pull a full train of such weighty cars. 

 

And, from my experience of watching/photographing Ufford all those years ago, don't expect any of the kit-built locos I saw (no doubt commissioned at a high-price!) to pull anything!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

A Hornby Railroad Mk1 weighs in at 120g, the Bachmann equivalent is 160g, of which 25g is the wheels. Perhaps I just need depleted uranium wheels, it would certainly keep the CofG down.

 

First things first, a rake of coaches that hold the road is the objective, I'll worry later about what can pull them. The fiddle yard as currently configured will not allow a train of more than 6 Mk1s, which is not really so much shorter than what you might see on the East Suffolk anyway. The Heljan Hymek gives the impression it would romp away with 6 coaches cast in lead.

 

The steam locos can wait. There is a J69 in there which has springing on the outer axles but the middle one is fixed - work that one out. I would be tempted to dispense with the springing altogether by supergluing the bearings to turn them all  back into rigid chassis locos, except of course I don't think a rigid chassis P4 loco is likely to stay on the track! So I think I need a more cunning plan in regards to chassis redesign.

 

Does anybody know if those P4 coach wheels that Branchlines used to do are still on the market, I think they came from Australia. I have a stock for diesel conversions, but not enough for my coaches.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Higgs
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Kevin,

 

I can't upload the photo, it needs scanning. Some information may be of interest, The locomotive looks to be very clean and shiny, the train itself is rather disappointing given all the fuss about the muscle of different locomotives working the services. Are Presflos particularly heavy? The train is formed of twelve or possibly thirteen wagons and a guards van, the angle is quite tight. The only fly in the ointment is that a closer look at the photo would indicate that the locomotive is 60513 Dante. I can't quite read the shed code but Yeadon says Peterborough New England at this time.

Good morning Andrew,

 

I don't know the weight of a 'Presflo' cement wagon, but, fully-laden, I'll bet it's a fair bit. I'm sure someone on here will tell us.

 

I don't know the date of when the A2/3 was tried on the cement train, nor whether it became a regular diagram, and, I must admit, I've not seen pictures of the big Thompson Pacifics on the train. 

 

I've certainly seen pictures of V2s and 9Fs on cement trains on the ECML - there's one of a V2 by Keith Pirt, ascending Gamston Bank on a relatively short cement train.

 

It would seem that the much-mentioned cement block train had a brake van at both ends. 

 

WMRC ran a cement train on Stoke Summit, on occasions worked by an A2/3......

 

605250162_60516oncement04.jpg.49a6b433b91f2a6f16b78e89cc36fce9.jpg

 

It only had a brake van at the rear end.

 

123778286_6051507.jpg.9ebb50c951a2c62d1392aa567c51949f.jpg

 

It's the same set now on LB, but with a brake van at both ends. It's also the same A2/3, though I doubt if a Tyneside-based one would be on the train!

 

1042019516_60500onCliffe-Uddingstoncementblocktrain01.jpg.81d2beee9167bbd5a4ef1f607705ba54.jpg

 

136011685_60500onCliffe-Uddingstoncementblocktrain02.jpg.458f18f756164d7c0f05a159e49850f4.jpg

 

More appropriate is a New England-allocated A2/3.

 

It could well be that I've got the dates wrong here, for Little Bytham Station was demolished in the summer of 1959 (it looks like it's being demolished in these long-ago-taken pictures!), but it's such a good-looking rake of wagons (built by Rob Kinsey from Airfix kits) that I don't mind 'bending history' a bit. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to Andy and Tony’s comments I reckon a loaded Presflo came in at 36 tons which made it a heavy wagon. This is probably what led to the introduction of The Cemflo wagon which was constructed from a lighter material. Although the photo is important in that it identifies the use of 60513 Dante (34E) on a Cement Train, I don’t think it is a photo of the test train as the formation is too short. I believe the length of the train increased progressively from 15 Presflos to well over 20 wagons by August 1961 when The Cemflo service commenced. For a period from August 1961 until November 1961, both trains ran along The ECML but on different days of the week. From that date The Cemflo service appears to have taken over although I believe that after that date there were still Presflo trains operating on The ECML in connection with the transport of flyash from The South Yorkshire Power Stations to Fletton, south of Peterborough. So it would be interesting to discover the identity of The A2/3 used on the test train, but also as to whether this train consisted of Presflos or Cemflos?

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

I don't know the weight of a 'Presflo' cement wagon, but, fully-laden, I'll bet it's a fair bit. I'm sure someone on here will tell us.

 

I don't know the date of when the A2/3 was tried on the cement train, nor whether it became a regular diagram, and, I must admit, I've not seen pictures of the big Thompson Pacifics on the train. 

 

I've certainly seen pictures of V2s and 9Fs on cement trains on the ECML - there's one of a V2 by Keith Pirt, ascending Gamston Bank on a relatively short cement train.

 

It would seem that the much-mentioned cement block train had a brake van at both ends. 

 

WMRC ran a cement train on Stoke Summit, on occasions worked by an A2/3......

 

605250162_60516oncement04.jpg.49a6b433b91f2a6f16b78e89cc36fce9.jpg

 

It only had a brake van at the rear end.

 

123778286_6051507.jpg.9ebb50c951a2c62d1392aa567c51949f.jpg

 

It's the same set now on LB, but with a brake van at both ends. It's also the same A2/3, though I doubt if a Tyneside-based one would be on the train!

 

1042019516_60500onCliffe-Uddingstoncementblocktrain01.jpg.81d2beee9167bbd5a4ef1f607705ba54.jpg

 

136011685_60500onCliffe-Uddingstoncementblocktrain02.jpg.458f18f756164d7c0f05a159e49850f4.jpg

 

More appropriate is a New England-allocated A2/3.

 

It could well be that I've got the dates wrong here, for Little Bytham Station was demolished in the summer of 1959 (it looks like it's being demolished in these long-ago-taken pictures!), but it's such a good-looking rake of wagons (built by Rob Kinsey from Airfix kits) that I don't mind 'bending history' a bit. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

I do like the old Airfix cement wagon, mine are all PCV or CPV, CPV were the BR owned ones in bauxite and PCV private owner ones in various colours, mine are grey.

 

Spent an interesting half hour at a cement terminal siding taking notes and photos, so my wagons are based on real ones.

 

I prefer kits to RTR for wagons.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

it is certainly a most distinctive train, I think I did see it run on Stoke bank. The wagons look to be the same type, the two horizontal strengthening ribs that wrap around the body are very noticeable, especially at the corners in three-quarter view, I count thirteen of these but only one brake van, The loco is defiantly 60513, not 60518 as I first thought. 60516 in your photo is a beautiful model, The advantage of the Romford (or could they be Gibson) bogie wheels really show in photo two. Those on the new Hornby princess (another loco with the cylinders set back and the bogie wheels on full display) look like steam roller tiers in comparison, the thread looks thicker than the diameter of the wheels!

 

It was a beautiful sunny morning yesterday, so I snapped of a shot of progress on my ECJS BG. It has laid untouched since November with only the basic body and the underframe assembled. I've managed to get the details on to the chassis and body sides and the bogies assembled over the last two weeks, not the fastest work in the world at the moment but it will get finished. The kit is D&S and is of very good quality, however, I have made a couple of modifications myself. The replacement of the steel headstock Provided with the distinctive wooden type, who's curved ends stuck out beyond the body sides. I re profiled the ducket to get a better fit with the sides, as shown in photographs. I didn't mind filing off the beading on the lower sides as the moulded representation was a bit chunky and is easily replaced. Finally, I supped up the detail on the plug doors in order to better represent them. The clerestory is just mocked up at the moment and final ride height is still to be settled, perhaps a tenth more.

 

 

ECJS BG 1.jpg

Another beautiful model you've made (making) Andrew,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

The wheels on the cement train are a mixture of Gibson's and Jackson (the latter preferred because they're always true-round, and the tyres don't come off). I've had to change several of the Gibson wheels because of what's happened, though the latest ones seem to be all right now. 

 

I think in fairness to the RTR manufacturers, they have no means of knowing on what sort of road their products will be asked to run on. Anything from 'scale' OO to train set curves. With regard to the former, often substitute, finer bogie wheels are included with some products, and with regard to the latter, the chunky bogie wheels mean they don't fall off on dodgy track. 

 

Though I'm not a great user of RTR locos, with the few I do run (and it's getting fewer as I sell them on), one of the first priorities with regard to 'improving' them is (if they're fitted) to dispose of the horrid bogie wheels and substitute more-accurate ones from Markits or Gibson. 

 

The difference is amazing..................................!

 

60125.jpg.5d22b12a979cf40c2dcdb62561011939.jpg

 

Here's a much-altered Bachmann A1 with (actually, old) MGW bogie wheels. It's also had etched deflectors fitted, the rear end lifted up to match the tender, those wiggly pipes added, the return crank altered, and it's been renumbered/renamed and weathered. 

 

Those ghastly, over-scale BR lamps have long-gone! 

 

348454338_BachmannA260538VELOCITY02.jpg.d614296972e5a779afa0f6aa3925964b.jpg

 

And a Bachmann A2 with much the same mods (and Gibson bogie wheels), but this one weathered by Tom Foster.

 

1000280590_RMLittleBytham07.jpg.927c67e7f354b5faceb4f94f97e2aaf7.jpg

 

And a detailed/altered/repainted (Ian Rathbone) Hornby A4, with Markits bogie wheels. This was on the front cover of the last RM.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 11
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Another beautiful model you've made (making) Andrew,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

The wheels on the cement train are a mixture of Gibson's and Jackson (the latter preferred because they're always true-round, and the tyres don't come off). I've had to change several of the Gibson wheels because of what's happened, though the latest ones seem to be all right now. 

 

I think in fairness to the RTR manufacturers, they have no means of knowing on what sort of road their products will be asked to run on. Anything from 'scale' OO to train set curves. With regard to the former, often substitute, finer bogie wheels are included with some products, and with regard to the latter, the chunky bogie wheels mean they don't fall off on dodgy track. 

 

Though I'm not a great user of RTR locos, with the few I do run (and it's getting fewer as I sell them on), one of the first priorities with regard to 'improving' them is (if they're fitted) to dispose of the horrid bogie wheels and substitute more-accurate ones from Markits or Gibson. 

 

The difference is amazing..................................!

 

60125.jpg.5d22b12a979cf40c2dcdb62561011939.jpg

 

Here's a much-altered Bachmann A1 with (actually, old) MGW bogie wheels. It's also had etched deflectors fitted, the rear end lifted up to match the tender, those wiggly pipes added, the return crank altered, and it's been renumbered/renamed and weathered. 

 

Those ghastly, over-scale BR lamps have long-gone! 

 

348454338_BachmannA260538VELOCITY02.jpg.d614296972e5a779afa0f6aa3925964b.jpg

 

And a Bachmann A2 with much the same mods (and Gibson bogie wheels), but this one weathered by Tom Foster.

 

1000280590_RMLittleBytham07.jpg.927c67e7f354b5faceb4f94f97e2aaf7.jpg

 

And a detailed/altered/repainted (Ian Rathbone) Hornby A4, with Markits bogie wheels. This was on the front cover of the last RM.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good morning Tony,


I have found that a surprising number of people don't really get what you are talking about when it comes to bogie wheels. That is until they are physically shown a comparison side by side. It comes as quite a surprise, almost a revelation, with regard to what the differences are. The Princess locomotive has smallish bogie wheels in comparison to some others, so some points that you make are easier to illustrate, the flange depth and tread being so much more exaggerated against wheel diameter.

 

28 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

IIRC a loaded Presflo weighed somewhere in the region of 33 tons.

 

John

 

Good morning John,

 

so my thirteen wagon cement train would be pretty comparable to thirteen bogies, well within the capabilities of an A2/3. I assume vacuum braking, no issues for the big wheeled pacific there. What would the speed of the cement train be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
30 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,


I have found that a surprising number of people don't really get what you are talking about when it comes to bogie wheels. That is until they are physically shown a comparison side by side. It comes as quite a surprise, almost a revelation, with regard to what the differences are. The Princess locomotive has smallish bogie wheels in comparison to some others, so some points that you make are easier to illustrate, the flange depth and tread being so much more exaggerated against wheel diameter.

 

 

Good morning John,

 

so my thirteen wagon cement train would be pretty comparable to thirteen bogies, well within the capabilities of an A2/3. I assume vacuum braking, no issues for the big wheeled pacific there. What would the speed of the cement train be?

 

Good morning, Andrew,

 

10' 6" wheelbase so maximum 60 mph. Presflos had roller bearings so that might be interpreted fairly liberally if lost time needed to be regained, though.

 

The only block Presflo working I saw regularly ran from Westbury to Exeter and commonly loaded to around twenty vehicles (c650 tons). I'm not sure what the booked speed was, but usual power I observed was 2 x Hall or Hall + Grange, necessary to deal with gradients. That suggests the speed was set higher than would permit the use of a 28xx/2884 class 2-8-0 which could easily handle such a load solo.

 

John

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

25 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Good morning, Andrew,

 

10' 6" wheelbase so maximum 60 mph. Presflos had roller bearings so that might be interpreted fairly liberally if lost time needed to be regained, though.

 

The only block Presflo working I saw regularly ran from Westbury to Exeter and commonly loaded to around twenty vehicles (c650 tons). I'm not sure what the booked speed was, but usual power I observed was 2 x Hall or Hall + Grange, necessary to deal with gradients. That suggests the speed was set higher than would permit the regular use of a 28xx/2884 class 2-8-0 which could easily handle such a load solo.

 

John

 

Good morning John,

 

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.

Edited by Headstock
add ,
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

IIRC a loaded Presflo weighed somewhere in the region of 33 tons.

 

John

That's about right. Rowland page 73 has a photo of the prototype diagram 1/273 Presflo branded as 20 ton capacity and tare 12T 8 cwt. The production diagram 1/272 version would have been about the same.

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

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning John,

 

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 "superiority" of the Pacific over the 9F is specific to the load and schedule of the working and won't apply across the board.  Generalisation is therefore unwise (if not impossible).

 

For example, a 9F wouldn't bat an eyelid if required to work a 900 ton unfitted coal train on a 20 mph schedule, but you'd probably ruin the Pacific if you tried it with that. Conversely, there are well documented occurrences of 9Fs hauling heavy passenger trains at speeds that wouldn't disgrace a Pacific.

 

John

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
27 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning John,

 

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.

 

They could be for very short periods of time, there are documented cases of 3000edhp (Peter Smith S&D books), but not continuous.

 

That is the big difference between Diesel and both Steam and Electric, Diesel has a maximum power, Steam can run beyond normal power levels for short periods of time, Electrics are continuously rated rather than maxium rated.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The "superiority" of the Pacific over the 9F is specific to the working and won't apply across the board.  Generalisation is therefore unwise (if not impossible).

 

For example, a 9F wouldn't bat an eyelid if required to work a 900 ton unfitted coal train on a 20 mph schedule, but you'd probably ruin the Pacific if you tried it with that. Conversely, there are well documented occurrences of 9Fs hauling heavy passenger trains at speeds that wouldn't disgrace a Pacific.

 

John

 

 

Good Afternoon John,

 

we are talking about a specific working, one were how many horses you have under the bonnet is apparently the most important factor. The A2/3 is superior to the 9F in how much power it has. The A2/3 would not  work an unfitted 900 ton coal train, it doesn't have enough braking power to do so. I've seen a S150 out pull a 9F on a thousand ton freight train from a dead stand. 9F is still the more powerful locomotive but it slipped like hell trying to match the performance of the consolidation. Which of the two is superior?

Edited by Headstock
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

They could be for very short periods of time, there are documented cases of 3000edhp (Peter Smith S&D books), but not continuous.

 

That is the big difference between Diesel and both Steam and Electric, Diesel has a maximum power, Steam can run beyond normal power levels for short periods of time, Electrics are continuously rated rather than maxium rated.

 

Yes continually, The Peppercorn A1 with an almost identical boiler, was designed to run 600 ton trains at an average speed of 60 mph continually. A4 Capercaillie maintained  75.9 MPH over 25 miles on straight and flat track, with a trailing load of 730 tons gross (21 carriages) No 9F could generate the horse power required to match this effort.

Edited by Headstock
ADD,
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Yes continually, The Peppercorn A1 with an almost identical boiler, was designed to run 600 ton trains at an average speed of 60 mph continually. A4 Capercaillie maintained  75.9 MPH over 25 miles on straight and flat track, with a trailing load of 730 tons gross (21 carriages) No 9F could generate the horse power required to match this effort.

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?

Edited by Lecorbusier
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 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...