Big Bertha

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Were locomotives that lasted over 35 years and 30 years respectfully total failures?

 

No indeed; they did their work and all concerned put up with their deficiencies.

 

6 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I thought both really went due to a need for new boilers and the fact they were one offs scuppered their chances of BR spending any money on them.

 

In the case of the Lickey Banker, the immediate cause of its withdrawal was that the journals of the second axle were down to minimum permissible limits. This was the forged axle, cranked to clear the inside connecting rods, for which there was no spare. 

 

There were two boilers for the Banker, exchanged roughly annually. "The short periods of heavy steaming and long periods of standby combined with running back down the bank without steam placed more than the usual stress on the boiler." (That would have been true of any banking engine, although of course ones drawn from a large standard class such as the 3F 0-6-0Ts would have a large pool of boilers to call on, and hence be more economic in that respect than a one-off engine with two boilers.)

 

[Summerson, op. cit.]

 

7 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

I think there was also LMS on cabside with number on tender. Virtually the same as the last MR livery but with the crest changed to LMS.

 

I'll have a look in the Illustrated History LMS Locomotives - Midland volume. Pretty sure it's in there.

 

Summerson again: "It is believed that this [the MR coat of arms] was replaced in the 1920s with the LMS 'panel' although strangely, no photograph has come to notice to prove it." He gives 1928 as the date of application of the 1928 livery style. This all seems highly likely as the engine was an annual visitor to Derby and somewhat in the public eye. I don't have the Essery & Jenkinson LMS volumes; it would be interesting to know what they say there. 

 

After the early 20s, when the engine received the attention of the Midland's photographer and of W.L. Good, there is a paucity of photographs until after the second world war - a combination of photography still being an expensive hobby and the lack of an enthusiast in the area, no doubt. Photographs of the rear end of goods trains are rare at any period; at least the Banker was the cause of a handful being taken in late Midland days!

[ikks]

19 hours ago, E100 said:

A 9F has a flangeless centre wheel. Does the banker have a flangeless centre wheel too?

I believe all of the wheelsets on a 9F are flanged, the flanges on the middle set have a more shallow profile.

Mike

[melmerby]

21 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I think there was also LMS on cabside with number on tender. Virtually the same as the last MR livery but with the crest changed to LMS.

 

I'll have a look in the Illustrated History LMS Locomotives - Midland volume. Pretty sure it's in there.

 

 

Jason

I've already posted about that.

According to Essery & Jenkinson the MR crest was still there in 1926.

First painted in LMS pre 1928 livery but changed in 1927/8 to cabside number with LMS on the tender.

No mention of exactly what was on the cabside 1926-1928 of which there were 6 variations listed by E & J

 

Nobody seems to have seen a photo of the loco in it's 1926-28 condition either.

 

[VIA185]

19 hours ago, Trog said:

 Should that in this case be vertical curves as the pictures I have seen show a quite rapid change of gradient at the end of the bank. Although this may be due to the effect of pictures taken through a telescopic lens.

 

(If you want to give a PW Supervisor a heart attack let him look through a surveyors level at some old jointed track he is responsible for, as the dips at the joints look horrendous and a half.)

No, nothing to do with the prototype. I was merely suggesting that an all-flanged 0-10-0 will take some ingenuity to get it around a second radius curve. 

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I've already posted about that.

According to Essery & Jenkinson the MR crest was still there in 1926.

First painted in LMS pre 1928 livery but changed in 1927/8 to cabside number with LMS on the tender.

No mention of exactly what was on the cabside 1926-1928 of which there were 6 variations listed by E & J

 

Nobody seems to have seen a photo of the loco in it's 1926-28 condition either.

 

 

Thanks - that confirms the two sources I have - Summerson and Essery & Jenkinsons's Midland Locomotives Vol. 4; in particular it confirms the lack of evidence! Again, it fits with the engine's regular visits to Derby that it should be an early recipient of the "1928" livery; in Midland Locomotives Vol. 1 Essery & Jenkinson give February 1928 as the general date of introduction of the new livery. In Vol. 4 they reproduce a broadside shot of cab and tender in the apparently freshly-applied 1928 livery, with the painted over transfers 2290 clearly showing up on the tender side. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be made out under the 2290 on the cab side-sheet.

 

With regard to the engine being always smartly turned-out in Midland days, they also reproduce what is captioned as a W.L. Good photo dated July 1921, of it standing in the goods yard at Bromsgrove looking decidedly un-shiny. However, the date must be wrong, as the tender sides have been cut down - so after August 1925. I wouldn't be surprised if the wrong photo was used when the book was being typeset. It's impossible to make out any lettering or numbering on the cab and tender sides!

[melmerby]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

With regard to the engine being always smartly turned-out in Midland days, they also reproduce what is captioned as a W.L. Good photo dated July 1921, of it standing in the goods yard at Bromsgrove looking decidedly un-shiny. However, the date must be wrong, as the tender sides have been cut down - so after August 1925. I wouldn't be surprised if the wrong photo was used when the book was being typeset. It's impossible to make out any lettering or numbering on the cab and tender sides!

I've just trawled the net for photos (dozens) and I would say in the majority the loco is dirty enough for insignia not to be clearly visible

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I've just trawled the net for photos (dozens) and I would say in the majority the loco is dirty enough for insignia not to be clearly visible

 

Here's one where it is, and with the number 22290, so in the period Sept 47 - Jan 49, not previously illustrated in this thread, I think:

 

 

[Embedded link to Midland Railway Centre, Butterley, website.]

[Allegheny1600]

3 hours ago, ikks said:

I believe all of the wheelsets on a 9F are flanged, the flanges on the middle set have a more shallow profile.

Mike

This picture from Flickr would seem to agree with you;

 

However, this one appears to contradict you!

Plus, I remember having a really good look at the wheels on a 9F one time at the East Lancs Railway and running my hand partway around the centre driver and noticing that not only was it flange less, it wasn’t tapered , actually flat in profile, unlike the reminder of the drivers.

It certainly struck me!

That’s not to say that all 9Fs were one or the other - as the above pictures show, they can be either/or.

Sorry for the thread diversion.

By the way, I have numerous ten coupled locos in H0 and they are usually fine with second radius curves, they achieve this in several ways, excessive slop, articulation, flange less and/or fine flanged drivers. The worse offenders tend to be American prototypes rather than European, mainly due to excessive overall length.

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Allegheny1600 said:

This picture from Flickr would seem to agree with you;

 

 

 

Doesnt look flanged to me

All I can see is a flat tread with rust either side of the contact area.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by melmerby

[Compound2632]

This is all rather moot; the question was whether an 00 model of a ten-coupled engine with flanges to all wheels is feasible.

 

Since, obviously, the core market for this model is folk building models of the Lickey Incline, 2nd radius doesn't come into it - the line is pretty much straight and the tightest curve the engine has to pass through is the reverse curve of a B8 (or thereabouts) crossover at top and bottom!

 

What I think is more challenging is making an 00 model that can handle the transition from level to 1:37 while keeping all its feet on the ground.

[E100]

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

This is all rather moot; the question was whether an 00 model of a ten-coupled engine with flanges to all wheels is feasible.

 

Since, obviously, the core market for this model is folk building models of the Lickey Incline, 2nd radius doesn't come into it - the line is pretty much straight and the tightest curve the engine has to pass through is the reverse curve of a B8 (or thereabouts) crossover at top and bottom!

 

What I think is more challenging is making an 00 model that can handle the transition from level to 1:37 while keeping all its feet on the ground.

I don’t think it is moot.
 

The 1:37 transition in theory is the same as the 1:1 railways issue if talking fully prototypical layouts.

 

In all likelihood most buyers of this model will use it largely on the flat and may well be 2nd radius. That being said I hope this model inspires some models of banking as that would make a fantastic exhibition piece. Making tracks 3 or similar scale would be ideal!

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, E100 said:

In all likelihood most buyers of this model will use it largely on the flat and may well be 2nd radius. 

 

I was aiming for humour, obviously!

 

Personally, I am quite tempted by the 1950s version, which would sit well with my 4Fs, 3Fs, and Midland-in-Birmingham theme, even if I have to say it's returning from Derby to Bromsgrove after overhaul - justifying minimal weathering! 

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

This picture from Flickr would seem to agree with you;

 

However, this one appears to contradict you!

Plus, I remember having a really good look at the wheels on a 9F one time at the East Lancs Railway and running my hand partway around the centre driver and noticing that not only was it flange less, it wasn’t tapered , actually flat in profile, unlike the reminder of the drivers.

It certainly struck me!

That’s not to say that all 9Fs were one or the other - as the above pictures show, they can be either/or.

Sorry for the thread diversion.

By the way, I have numerous ten coupled locos in H0 and they are usually fine with second radius curves, they achieve this in several ways, excessive slop, articulation, flange less and/or fine flanged drivers. The worse offenders tend to be American prototypes rather than European, mainly due to excessive overall length.

 

All 9Fs had a flangeless centre driving wheel. That's why they are banned on Network Rail.

 

Although the WD 2-10-0s didn't.

 

 

Jason

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I remember having a really good look at the wheels on a 9F one time at the East Lancs Railway and running my hand partway around the centre driver and noticing that not only was it flange less, it wasn’t tapered , actually flat in profile, unlike the reminder of the drivers.

As it has no need for self centering, there is no need for coning of the profile (that's my theory anyway🙂)

[Michael Hodgson]

32 minutes ago, melmerby said:

As it has no need for self centering, there is no need for coning of the profile (that's my theory anyway🙂)

Probably true.

Does it even need a tyre?

[melmerby]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Probably true.

Does it even need a tyre?

What else would run on the rail?.

It'll still wear so would need replacing every so often.

[Trog]

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I was aiming for humour, obviously!

 

..............................

 

So was I with much the same joke.

[DCB]

On 11/10/2022 at 15:38, Compound2632 said:

In the case of the Lickey Banker, the immediate cause of its withdrawal was that the journals of the second axle were down to minimum permissible limits. This was the forged axle, cranked to clear the inside connecting rods, for which there was no spare. 

 

 

Do you know if there are any pictures of the cranked axle.   I am fascinated by the notion of achieving clearance that way

[Lewi73050]

7 hours ago, DCB said:

 

Do you know if there are any pictures of the cranked axle.   I am fascinated by the notion of achieving clearance that way

There's this one which shows both the cranked axles whilst bertha is under construction

[DCB]

1 hour ago, Lewi73050 said:

There's this one which shows both the cranked axles whilst bertha is under construction

That's great, Wow what an awful arrangement of cylinders and valves for anything but loads of power at low speed.

It really brings home how much the UK Loading gauge constricted the power of our largest locos.  The way Gresley and Churchwatd couldn't copy the two cylinders of the US pacifics which inspire them so had to use 4 and 3.   I wonder how many other locos used similar axles for clearance..   I know a lot of 0-6-0s had their valves under the cylinders and valve gear under the leading axle     I always think if there had been a full size Triang "Nellie" it would have needed a cranked axle like that for the con rods to clear the front axle.

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, DCB said:

I wonder how many other locos used similar axles for clearance.

 

It may have been unique among British engines, at least. Inside-cylinder 0-8-0s were driven on the second coupled axle.

[Colin_McLeod]

Forgive the niave question, but how does cranking the axle increase clearance?  I always thought the crank was for taking power off the inside cylinder via the connecting rod.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Forgive the niave question, but how does cranking the axle increase clearance?  I always thought the crank was for taking power off the inside cylinder via the connecting rod.

 

Yes, the crank axle proper is the third axle, as seen in @Lewi73050's photo. The problem here was that at the bottom of its cycle, the connecting rod would foul the second axle. One way of avoiding this would be to have the cylinders so steeply inclined that they'd be on the boiler centreline! (A bad idea - cf Rocket, soon rebuilt!) So cranking the second axle provides the necessary clearance for the connecting rods. I refer you again to the General Arrangement drawing, Midland Railway Study Centre item 12275 - just put 0-10-0 into the catalogue search and a downloadable scan is the first thing that comes up.

[Colin_McLeod]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

So cranking the second axle provides the necessary clearance for the connecting rods.

I get it now. Many thanks for the explanation.

[RedgateModels]

21 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

I get it now. Many thanks for the explanation.

 

Agreed, every day is a school day 😀