Jump to content

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

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.

That makes sense ... so presumably the more wheels the greater the spread of weight and as such should a wheel start to slip it is likely to have a less pronounced impact on the other wheels? I remember reading somewhere that it takes far greater force to cause a wheel to slip than to maintain it slipping. 

 

Do I take it that all else being equal - and given that steam unlike an internal combustion engine is not reliant on RPM to prevent stalling -  the size of the drivers is somewhat irrelevant apart from allowing the spreading of the weight for a given size or allowing a greater top speed?

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

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.

And notoriously slipped doing so. Hauling what I believe was near a 1,000 ton cement train (not 600 tons - 28 wagons at 35 tons each, plus a 20 ton brake van) might have been pushing it a bit too far. Put an A2/3 boiler and cylinders on a 2-8-2, and you've got something that's just the thing for the job. Oh dear, we seem to have invented the P2 again. I believe it was the fast mixed traffic locomotive that Britain didn't know it needed.

 

In fact, given that the P2 was more Bulleid's baby than Gresley's, the fact that he wanted the Merchant Navy class to be a 2-8-2, and that the Merchant Navies were approved as mixed traffic types, I think at least one man did know it was what Britain needed to be building.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RLBH said:

In fact, given that the P2 was more Bulleid's baby than Gresley's, the fact that he wanted the Merchant Navy class to be a 2-8-2, and that the Merchant Navies were approved as mixed traffic types, I think at least one man did know it was what Britain needed to be building.

I believe that it was the Civil Engineer who put the kybosh on OVSB's plan to have the MNs built as 2-8-2s?

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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 think something of that ilk was under consideration within the BR Standard range. From the sketches I've seen, it would have effectively been a Britannia rearranged as a 2-8-2 with 5'8" drivers, with a smaller boilered (9F/Clan?.) version for weight-restricted routes. However, given the ruling conditions you describe, they would have been locos looking for a job that, at the time, didn't exist.

 

Unfortunately, the common carrier status of our railways and the belated abolition of PO wagons, which should never have been permitted to become re-established after WW1, left the freight side of the industry stuck in a Victorian/Edwardian timewarp.

 

John  

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think something of that ilk was under consideration within the BR Standard range. From the sketches I've seen, it would have effectively been a Britannia rearranged as a 2-8-2 with 5'8" drivers, with a smaller boilered (9F/Clan?.) version for weight-restricted routes. However, given the ruling conditions you describe, they would have been locos looking for a job that, at the time, didn't exist.

 

Unfortunately, the common carrier status of our railways and the belated abolition of PO wagons, which should never have been permitted to become re-established after WW1, left the freight side of the industry stuck in a Victorian/Edwardian timewarp.

 

John  

 

Good evening John,

 

I think you are right, it surprises me that the boiler was smaller on the proposed locomotive, Old fashioned thinking because it wasn't a passenger engine? The whole point of a Mikado is that you can accommodate a massive boiler.

 

Rather, amusingly, the British railways team were obsessed with free gas flow area to the exclusion of everything else. The Britannia was designed to have the perfect proportions in that respect. The 9F was regarded as a less than perfect  compromise of the Britannia design, that  would fit all the features required above a ten coupled chassis. Yet the 9F proved to be a superior producer and user of steam than its bigger stable-mate.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RLBH said:

And notoriously slipped doing so. Hauling what I believe was near a 1,000 ton cement train (not 600 tons - 28 wagons at 35 tons each, plus a 20 ton brake van) might have been pushing it a bit too far. Put an A2/3 boiler and cylinders on a 2-8-2, and you've got something that's just the thing for the job. Oh dear, we seem to have invented the P2 again. I believe it was the fast mixed traffic locomotive that Britain didn't know it needed.

 

In fact, given that the P2 was more Bulleid's baby than Gresley's, the fact that he wanted the Merchant Navy class to be a 2-8-2, and that the Merchant Navies were approved as mixed traffic types, I think at least one man did know it was what Britain needed to be building.

 

I'm not sure if I wish to press the agree, or funny button on that one with regard to class P2. It did make me laugh. I discounted the 1000 ton freight train, just because it didn't seem to fit with the original speculation and scenario around  the use of the A2/3, rather as a further development to the story.

 

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

I believe that it was the Civil Engineer who put the kybosh on OVSB's plan to have the MNs built as 2-8-2s?

 

Mark

 

It was Bulleid who suggested to Peppercorn, that if he designed an eight coupled express locomotive, 'his name would be made'.

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

Good evening everyone, (but especially Tony)

Just read one of your posting featuring photos of some of your locos.

I’m surprised that the picture  from of RM wasn’t one of your kit built locos as I know your modelling preferences. Did you have any say in the matter? If it was me I’d have packed all the RTR stock well away!

Happy modelling 

Eric

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the comments regarding the cement trains, different locos, adhesion, suitability, etc. 

 

From my reading of the 9F/A2/3 debate regarding the heavy cement train, it seems that there were regular problems with the 9Fs losing time climbing Stoke. An A2/3 was tried, and the timekeeping problems 'disappeared'. 

 

Whether the A2/3s from New England then took over the work, we don't know. There is no mention of the working in the RCTS Pt 2A of the Green Series (which is interesting). 

 

One thing is certain, the A2/3 is a more powerful loco than a 9F. 

 

Certainly, the use of ECML Pacifics on heavy freight trains (of all types) was common. The weighty Kings Cross-Niddrie 244 Down (the Scotch Goods) was often hauled by an A4, and the fully-fitted iron ore trains between High Dyke and Doncaster had to be hauled by powerful, fast locos, to keep out of the way (on a two track main line) of the expresses. O2s were fine, if branching of at Barkston for Scunthorpe, but not on the main line northwards; not on the fastest schedules. 

 

Anyway, on to more 'dainty' locomotives......... or, at least some.

 

1346199598_GCR4-4-001.jpg.a463a2585fa1577af03982848301c0ca.jpg

 

929842458_GCR4-4-002.jpg.05e7014d9f4ab3c2da676dd86ee5a23a.jpg

 

1058769077_GCR4-4-003.jpg.74efa8c121302045a55412f0a355b630.jpg

 

I've had three friends over today running the railway. One of whom was John Quick (of GCR fame). He's scratch-built this lovely GCR 4-4-0 (of which a full-sized version is being built, I'm told!). It ran beautifully hauling its MS&LR six-wheeled coach and a 'Barnum' (buffer locking on the Barnum meant it didn't like the 3' curves). 

 

Another friend brought along these Bachmann locos he's weathered..........................

 

1129051594_weatheredBachmannDirector.jpg.c0687966ad8757304af57fa81c78e793.jpg

 

1547124254_weatheredBachmannA2.jpg.5220ed4964f49ae875555c439d72a7da.jpg

 

Thanks chaps for such a great day, and thank you for your incredible donations to CRUK!

 

 

  • Like 13
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening John,

 

I think you are right, it surprises me that the boiler was smaller on the proposed locomotive, Old fashioned thinking because it wasn't a passenger engine? The whole point of a Mikado is that you can accommodate a massive boiler.

 

Rather, amusingly, the British railways team were obsessed with free gas flow area to the exclusion of everything else. The Britannia was designed to have the perfect proportions in that respect. The 9F was regarded as a less than perfect  compromise of the Britannia design, that  would fit all the features required above a ten coupled chassis. Yet the 9F proved to be a superior producer and user of steam than its bigger stable-mate.

I think the idea was to have a Britannia boiler on the 2-8-2 for general use with a smaller boiler version for lighter-laid routes - same principle as the Clans. Most of the UK network back then wasn't RA9 for either axle loading or gauging and the 9F design took account of that.

 

Absolute boiler capacity isn't always the vital factor either. I've read driver's anecdotes that they preferred a Clan to a Britannia 'cos they could thrash the nuts off  it with no fear of it slipping. Their firemen probably disagreed!

 

That said, the weakness of all the larger BR standards was they had the wrong boilers - they should have used Bulleid ones! 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Erichill16 said:

Good evening everyone, (but especially Tony)

Just read one of your posting featuring photos of some of your locos.

I’m surprised that the picture  from of RM wasn’t one of your kit built locos as I know your modelling preferences. Did you have any say in the matter? If it was me I’d have packed all the RTR stock well away!

Happy modelling 

Eric

Good evening Eric,

 

I didn't have any say on which picture would be used on the cover of the RM (why would I need to?), but I (obviously) submitted one (which they liked) featuring an RTR loco. 

 

I think it's fair to say it's a bit more than just an 'ordinary' RTR loco.......

 

1218555757_A460008.jpg.c6df82a31a42035b67c5cec1e06339b2.jpg

 

It started out as Hornby's original 'NE' black A4, SIR CHARLES NEWTON. I detailed it, changed the bogie wheels, close coupled the loco-to-tender and asked Ian Rathbone to paint it. I think, body-wise, its as good as any A4 I've made (probably better) but it's in the chassis area that the Hornby A4 is weak. The valve gear is insubstantial and too 'two-dimensional', and the slidebars and crossheads lean upwards towards the rear (the opposite of what they should be). The slidebar support brackets have long-gone - they're moulded as part of the body, and break off with too much ease. However, all the above said, with Ian's painting it does look rather nice. 

 

60008.jpg.e380ac35908f218d441a34ce1cb23183.jpg

 

It's pulling power is also rather limited, so the eight-car Talisman is about its maximum. 

 

412366317_60008small.jpg.8493cb27fa10f08173e13af70d2ef737.jpg

 

The real thing could take a fair bit more!

 

909809263_RMLittleBytham30.jpg.be9090cce0328189ea08c5781068c015.jpg

 

Given that the bodywork on 60008 is so good, what I might do is replace the Hornby chassis, and make one from SE Finecast - as I have here; underneath a modified Bachmann A4 body. This one also tows an SEF tender. Ian Rathbone also painted this.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Agree 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think the idea was to have a Britannia boiler on the 2-8-2 for general use with a smaller boiler version for lighter-laid routes - same principle as the Clans. Most of the UK network back then wasn't RA9 for either axle loading or gauging and the 9F design took account of that.

 

Absolute boiler capacity isn't always the vital factor either. I've read driver's anecdotes that they preferred a Clan to a Britannia 'cos they could thrash the nuts off  it with no fear of it slipping. Their firemen probably disagreed!

 

That said, the weakness of all the larger BR standards was they had the wrong boilers - they should have used Bulleid ones! 

 

John

 

Some interesting thoughts to ponder John, the Bulleid boilers are a whole other story.

 

The nice thing about today's extended conversation, is that it has all come about because of Little Bytham, where Tony is modelling actual trains in a real time and place.

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Tony, 

I’ve got the that issue of RM and automatically thought it was one of your kit built A4. It’s only when I look at the upward sloping slide bar that I recognise it’s origins.  Im slowly ploughing through this thread and found it encouraging, however some of it has made me realise that some of my RTR stock is not quite as good as I thought. Anyway, most have been renumbered and all have been weathered so they are mine.

regards Eric.

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

 

It was Bulleid who suggested to Peppercorn, that if he designed an eight coupled express locomotive, 'his name would be made'.

I believe the actual quotation was 'Pepp, if you design an express locomotive with five driving wheels your name is made!'

 

Now I will have to look up my source for that - but please may I get some sleep first!

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that does rather spoil those RTR A4s is the slab sided cylinder cover.

 

On the real locos, the bottom of the cylinder, from roughly the level of the piston rod, is a lovely curve, just the same as the bottom of the cylinders on more normal other locos.

 

I appreciate that the models have been designed so that the cylinder cover is part of the body and slots down over a dummy cylinder which is attached to the frames, but there are other ways of doing it.

 

The Hornby one looks too deep anyway, coming down almost to the centre of the bogie wheels.

 

The Bachmann A2 pictured above is much better in this respect.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

One thing that does rather spoil those RTR A4s is the slab sided cylinder cover.

 

On the real locos, the bottom of the cylinder, from roughly the level of the piston rod, is a lovely curve, just the same as the bottom of the cylinders on more normal other locos.

 

I appreciate that the models have been designed so that the cylinder cover is part of the body and slots down over a dummy cylinder which is attached to the frames, but there are other ways of doing it.

 

The Hornby one looks too deep anyway, coming down almost to the centre of the bogie wheels.

 

The Bachmann A2 pictured above is much better in this respect.

I agree Tony,

 

Though the SEF-chassised one does have a sort of curve at the base. Each part of the cylinders is attached to the frames, not the body; unlike the Hornby one, where the cylinder 'covers' are part of the body. That seems to be the RTR way. 

 

I think the Hornby A4 body is generally very good, and those subtle curves have been very well-captured.

 

However, in my view, the best 4mm A4 is the Pro-Scale one........

 

1669479817_600240nUpElizabethan.jpg.dab9c38cf13ed155c1c244701c0d7c5a.jpg

 

1537908932_60024onElizabethanbanner.jpg.b92b189387e930e5b826c9d823f3b2e3.jpg

 

 

 

1809291891_A460024andO463701.jpg.396fc8aefbe34996f42ba9b885d01f0a.jpg

 

487093870_A460024Pro-Scalekit.jpg.3be1df6af431d6224fbc00ecf3782121.jpg


They do take some building, and are not for the non bloody-minded, but (especially with an Ian Rathbone paint finish, as this is), the effort is worth it.

 

Friend, Eric Kidd, must have thought the same (though he paints his own locos).........

 

433099207_A4s60024.jpg.6346783f19fd259c6ae84415cdc3e407.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I can't remember what I did to the Carlisle ones but there's certainly more of a curve.

60011.JPG.33b4d59ba80ef5721a9cc07b64d7efdd.JPG

Hornby loco converted to EM with new wheels, additional frames and all new motion. 

I don't know whether I've mentioned this before, Mike, but who painted that fine model? 

 

The reason I ask is, that, among all the other A4s, 60011 was the only one never to receive electric warning flashes. It's tender did, but not the loco. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard of a professional builder building a Martin Finney chassis and placing it under a Hornby body as they said it was the equivalent with a few modifications to that of building a Martin Finney body.  Personally I have not seen the result however it was great phrase from the builder. This was third hand when I heard it so I would like to not mention names in case there was any Chinese whispers. 

 

I am looking forward to building the 2 kits I have for the A4's one day! 

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

I don't know whether I've mentioned this before, Mike, but who painted that fine model? 

 

The reason I ask is, that, among all the other A4s, 60011 was the only one never to receive electric warning flashes. It's tender did, but not the loco. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

You've pointed that out before but I don't think the loco was painted at all, I think it's the Hornby finish. Its possibly varnished  and lightly weathered but it was done eight years ago and I don't remember.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Kevin Roche said:

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?

There is no evidence that I know of that 9Fs struggled with the train when it was formed of Presflos. As you say 20 wagons of 36 tons is not overly demanding for a 9F. Andrew’s photo sounds like it is a short Presflo train with an A2/3, but we don’t know whether this was a test, an on the day substitution or a regular occurrence. The comment in Townsend’s book referred to the Cemflo era, when the train changed to Cliffe to Uddingston and loaded to c.28 wagons. The Cemflos were a similar weight loaded to the Presflos but in their case, 8.5 tons of body and 27 tons of load. A 28 wagon train would weigh c.1000 tons which might tax a 9F on Stoke Bank especially if the timings were tight - perhaps the performance experts could comment? I’ve seen no other photo of an A2/3 on either Presflos or Cemflos.

 

So the evidence as I see it is that an A2/3 worked the both Presflo and Cemflo train at least once each and possibly on an occasional basis, but was not a regular on either...certainly not on the Presflos.

 

With regard to brake vans, I think the brake van at each end started with the Cemflos and was required because it reversed somewhere in North London. I think the Presflo train sometimes had a second brake van in the middle because it split on route. There is a good picture in ‘Focus on Freight: Eastern Region since 1960’ (p34) of 9F 92188 with 15 Presflos including two brake vans, one after the 10th wagon and one at the rear. Admittedly this is captioned as a test. The same book has a good picture (p39) of 92040 on 28 Cemflos with a brake van at each end and (p42), V2, 60845 With a longer rake of Presflos with the brake van(s) out of sight.

 

Andy

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Eric,

 

I didn't have any say on which picture would be used on the cover of the RM (why would I need to?), but I (obviously) submitted one (which they liked) featuring an RTR loco. 

 

I think it's fair to say it's a bit more than just an 'ordinary' RTR loco.......

 

1218555757_A460008.jpg.c6df82a31a42035b67c5cec1e06339b2.jpg

 

It started out as Hornby's original 'NE' black A4, SIR CHARLES NEWTON. I detailed it, changed the bogie wheels, close coupled the loco-to-tender and asked Ian Rathbone to paint it. I think, body-wise, its as good as any A4 I've made (probably better) but it's in the chassis area that the Hornby A4 is weak. The valve gear is insubstantial and too 'two-dimensional', and the slidebars and crossheads lean upwards towards the rear (the opposite of what they should be). The slidebar support brackets have long-gone - they're moulded as part of the body, and break off with too much ease. However, all the above said, with Ian's painting it does look rather nice. 

 

60008.jpg.e380ac35908f218d441a34ce1cb23183.jpg

 

It's pulling power is also rather limited, so the eight-car Talisman is about its maximum. 

 

412366317_60008small.jpg.8493cb27fa10f08173e13af70d2ef737.jpg

 

The real thing could take a fair bit more!

 

909809263_RMLittleBytham30.jpg.be9090cce0328189ea08c5781068c015.jpg

 

Given that the bodywork on 60008 is so good, what I might do is replace the Hornby chassis, and make one from SE Finecast - as I have here; underneath a modified Bachmann A4 body. This one also tows an SEF tender. Ian Rathbone also painted this.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Agreed the Hornby A4 (and its sisters A1 A3 ) valve gear is a bit weedy , however looking at Faringdon, the awful fit of the Cylinder Covers is far more noticable to me at least.  It looks like the Finecast Body to me/  as their W1 was just as bad a fit in that area . As soon as Graeme made the A4 to W1 upgrade  mine was sold on, as it has such poor detail ,as on the juggernaut weighing Whitemetal Tender. As I model LNER the A4 valve gear is hardly seen behind the valances anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the A2/2/3 gear looks like on its arrival ,as that will will require complete new valve gear to be made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The High Dyke to Aldwarke Class C Iron Ore Train  was another interesting Freight working on The ECML. There was a regular service between High Dyke and Aldwarke for many years, utilising unfitted Iron Ore Tipplers, hauled by O2’s and occasional V2’s. Following a reorganisation in The Eastern Region Divisional Management Structure, a fully fitted C Service was introduced utilising vacuum fitted Iron Ore Tipplers in the distinctive bauxite livery. This Train only ran from March 1962 until March 1963, utilising A3’s from Grantham MPD and A1’s from elsewhere, loaded to about  27 wagons. However it proved difficult to keep the rake of vacuum fitted Tipplers together iin daily service. Apparently it was quite an experience in the early evening  when the train headed North through Grantham at 50mph as the driver got to work with the train.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 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
×
×
  • 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.