Jump to content
The forum software has been updated to a new version - further work on appearance and function will be carried out over the next day or so.

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
1 hour ago, Headstock said:

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 train in question loaded to 28 Cemflos, which comes out at 1,000 tons including guard's van.

 

38 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

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?

Precisely so - very good design meant that the 9F could put in a very respectable showing as a mixed traffic locomotive, and could deputise on an express in a pinch if you had a crew that could thrash it. Likewise, an express passenger locomotive has the power to handle a heavy train at less than express speeds almost by default, but might not have the adhesion and brake force to start and stop it - particularly on a gradient.

 

I'd not be surprised if the noted A2/3 cement working would run into trouble on steeper hills than Stoke Bank - or maybe even on Stoke if it had come to a stop. With perhaps ten tons less on drivers than a 9F, it wouldn't have been able to put down as much force to restart a stalled train, though I believe it was fully braked. If it was only a one-off experiment, it must not have been an unqualified success or else Pacifics hauling heavy freight would have been far more common!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

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?

 

Good afternoon Lecorbusier,

 

 

I just wrote you a pretty good reply, then RM web crashed on me and I can't recover it. You would have liked it I suspect.

 

Basically, forget about different types of trains, for two reasons. The nature of a heavy fitted freight train evens out the home advantages to each type of locomotive. Thus, it comes down more to Power. The A2/3 has more power. Hence, Tony W Quoting  KX shed master P N Townend, the Thompson A2/3 was the only locomotive sent out that mastered the job on the cement trains, when the 9F's were consistently loosing time on the working.

 

Second reason, with its bigger wheels, modern boiler and wide firebox, the 9F was not really designed for slogging it out on slow moving 900 ton unfitted freight trains, as mentioned up thread. In this respect a lot of its advantages would be waisted when compared to older 2-8-0 types on the same workings. In this respect it was a move towards a locomotive more capable of fast freight work. The Thompson A 2/3 was designed as a mixed traffic Pacific with smaller driving wheels than the pure express types such as the A4, A3 and A1. In this sense the two locomotives were converging, certainly not as far apart as say a Robinson 04, pure slow speed freight slogger and an A3, a fast express engine. I have more to say on efficiency but fear another RM web crash. I Hope that helps.

Edited by Headstock
Clarify a point.
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

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

 

Afternoon Apollo,

 

the Midland men at Holbeck thought the A3s were the best thing since sliced bread

 

1 hour ago, RLBH said:

The train in question loaded to 28 Cemflos, which comes out at 1,000 tons including guard's van.

 

Precisely so - very good design meant that the 9F could put in a very respectable showing as a mixed traffic locomotive, and could deputise on an express in a pinch if you had a crew that could thrash it. Likewise, an express passenger locomotive has the power to handle a heavy train at less than express speeds almost by default, but might not have the adhesion and brake force to start and stop it - particularly on a gradient.

 

I'd not be surprised if the noted A2/3 cement working would run into trouble on steeper hills than Stoke Bank - or maybe even on Stoke if it had come to a stop. With perhaps ten tons less on drivers than a 9F, it wouldn't have been able to put down as much force to restart a stalled train, though I believe it was fully braked. If it was only a one-off experiment, it must not have been an unqualified success or else Pacifics hauling heavy freight would have been far more common!

 

I don't think Hill climbing would be much an issue. If it can be done without fear with a 600 ton passenger train or the even heavier parcels trains that ran in the early hours out of London, why would a 600 ton cement train be any different? The V2's managed 750 plus ton trains out of KX during the War, from a standing start, on the gradient with the loco stood in Gasworks tunnel.

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

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?

 

In terns of efficiency, heavy slow moving unfitted freight trains requiring slow moving small wheeled freight locomotives was an anarchism. Totally inefficient, if we had full fitted freight trains our freight locomotives would be closer to express passenger types. Across between a 9F and an A2/3. A fast loco with more axels for weight and adhesion than the A 2/3, a bigger wide firebox and boiler than the 9F and bigger wheels. Oops, a Mikado, the standard freight locomotive in many countries around the world.

Edited by Headstock
A2/3 not A2/2
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

In terns of efficiency, heavy slow moving unfitted freight trains requiring slow moving small wheeled freight locomotives was an anarchism. Totally inefficient, if we had full fitted freight trains our freight locomotives would be closer to express passenger types. Across between a 9F and an A2/3. A fast loco with more axels for weight and adhesion than the A 2/3, a bigger wide firebox and boiler than the 9F and bigger wheels. Oops, a Mikado, the standard freight locomotive in many countries around the world.

I am getting myself totally confused here.

 

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

That being the case I had always understood the 9F to be perhaps the swan song as far as efficiency and available power was concerned on steam hauled heavy goods workings.  I was always rather surprised that it was recorded on occasion as having a reasonable turn of speed as well.

 

I also read somewhere that the LMS Duchesses had potentially massive power, but that they were limited by the capability of the fireman to feed the huge fire box?

 

As I said, I do not speak with any authority or depth of knowledge on any of this. It would be good to get a better handle on things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Different loco and lines but nonetheless a Pacific, the Britannias in their last days were used on express passenger, freight & parcels trains mainly between Crewe & Carlisle back in 66 / 67. - lots of photos Dad's photos here of them thundering up & down Boars Head bank Wigan in their final days.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67100-apollos-grand-days-out/page/2/

 

They were used occasionally on more menial tasks - in one book there are photos of a Brit hauling around 10 loaded sand wagons, AND banked by a Stanier 8F up Chequebent incline Westhoughton on the old Leigh & Bolton line in 1967 - Top & tail was common here - even on 10 loads as mining subsidence again had made an already steep incline (rope worked when built) very fierce at around 1 in 18. Brits were definitely not designed for those trains !!!!

 

Of course after around 1964, apart from the Britannias with all those then remaining eventually congregated at Carlisle Kingmoor, the West Coast mainline was "Pacificless". Even Patriots and Scots disappeared at the same time, just a few Jubilees left towards the end to see out ex LMS express steam power.

 

Brit15

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
14 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I am getting myself totally confused here.

 

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

That being the case I had always understood the 9F to be perhaps the swan song as far as efficiency and available power was concerned on steam hauled heavy goods workings.  I was always rather surprised that it was recorded on occasion as having a reasonable turn of speed as well.

 

I also read somewhere that the LMS Duchesses had potentially massive power, but that they were limited by the capability of the fireman to feed the huge fire box?

 

As I said, I do not speak with any authority or depth of knowledge on any of this. It would be good to get a better handle on things.

I think Headstock’s main point was the problem of efficiency in moving freight was the wagon types we had in the UK influencing the traction required to move it.  Companies knew this, and some did build bogie freight stock, but as highlighted with the problem with locos like the P1 being able to haul trains longer than the length of refuge loops, it wasn’t until all the infrastructure was adapted that bogie stock like we have today could be universally adopted.

With bogie designs of fitted wagons the appropriate steam loco’ would not have been a clanking WD austerity but probably a Mikado as suggested. Adhesion and power combined with the equally important ability to stop the load.

Edited by john new
P1 not P2 duh!
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

Larger drivers deliver higher speed for a given piston speed and rate of rotation - key factors in the days when the material technology was a limiting factor. By the 50s, advances in materials meant that smaller drivers could be used to deliver a given speed.

 

As I understand it, the key point for adhesion is not so much the number of points of contact as the total weight force acting on the rail. As has been discussed, the wheel arrangement comes into play, especially on starting, as the distribution of adhesive force is different - because the force is transmitted through the springs, its distribution across the locomotive's axles can vary. On starting, the tendency is for the force to be greater towards the rear, which favours any locomotive with a rear driven axle. Hence the well-known proneness to slipping of Pacifics.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I am getting myself totally confused here.

 

I always understood that large drivers meant high speed but potential issues with adhesion. As such the issue was more about the capability of being able to utilise the power available rather than the power itself?  .... particularly when starting on an incline?

 

Similarly I thought that smaller wheels and many drivers meant that due to the lower gearing there was less inclination to slip and with the increased number of points of contact greater adhesion?

 

That being the case I had always understood the 9F to be perhaps the swan song as far as efficiency and available power was concerned on steam hauled heavy goods workings.  I was always rather surprised that it was recorded on occasion as having a reasonable turn of speed as well.

 

I also read somewhere that the LMS Duchesses had potentially massive power, but that they were limited by the capability of the fireman to feed the huge fire box?

 

As I said, I do not speak with any authority or depth of knowledge on any of this. It would be good to get a better handle on things.

 

Tim,

 

I'm quite pooped out and require a pill and a snooze, I shall get back to you when I can, you may  like to look into factor of adhesion as it relates to different locomotives, you may discover a few surprises.

 

You are correct about the Duchess, but remember that the all express locomotives were limited in the same manner, at least as far as sustained power. Also, there wasn't an express train working on the whole of BR that demanded the maximum power out put ever achieved by a Duchess. Incidentally A1 Tornado, without any special arrangements and during ordinary workings on the mainline, has come within a hairsbreadth on a couple of occasions of matching the maximum power out put ever recorded by a British steam loco, the Duchess. Based on this, the new P2 is expected to exceed the Duchess by some margin, thus setting a new British record for steam traction and claiming the title of Britain's most powerful steam locomotive.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
  • Funny 1
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.