Wright writes.....

[MJI]

'Cochrane' - a 'Jubilee' I didn't see - was unusual in that it was a sort of 'two for one' engine.  It fell among the series of 'Jubs' named after famous naval officers and the most famous of the Cochranes was Admiral Lord Thomas Cochrane who had an amazing naval career in the service of several different countries at various times -

 

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/naval/p/Napoleonic-Wars-Admiral-Lord-Thomas-Cochrane.htm

 

However there was also  Admiral Alexander Cochrane - a relation of Thomas - who also had a distingusihed naval career.  The 'Jub' was almost certainly named after Thomas but maybe ... ...

 

Related to Thomas?

 

The Tank Engine!

 

 

When I were a lad I had a Triang Scotsman. I renumbered it to 60108 because that was easy, and fitted new name plates. I wouldn't do it now though-for those who don't know it's Gay Crusader!

 

Ed

 

I presume it was a racehorse and not an early campaigner for what we must now call LGBT people.

 

lehmann gross bahn?

[gr.king]

No denying that the Bachmann mechanism works well enough despite the lack of "reduction" in the gear ratio. Comet valve gear fits nicely and new rear frames would solve that side of the cosmetic problem.

 

The other "strange" thing about the cosmetics on the new-ish V2 chassis relates to the cylinder wrappers. Why would Bachmann think that these ought to be recessed between the ends of the cylinders when they are wrappers, i.e. added on externally?

[Chimer]

The layout depicting Knaresborough was simply stunning and in terms of scenic modelling it was breathtaking. However, and this is typical of me, I admit; an A4 (Hornby) appeared and it had the wrong tender! 

 

I suspect a tender axle box had seized and the shed staff did an one-day-only emergency swap which was never recorded in the annals ....   No ?  Oh, OK I'll get me coat ..

[PGC]

 

The layout depicting Knaresborough was simply stunning and in terms of scenic modelling it was breathtaking. However, and this is typical of me, I admit; an A4 (Hornby) appeared and it had the wrong tender! 

 

As a Southerner, I don't know the geography of the Northern rails too well, and assuming the layout is based in the days prior to the end of steam, in reality, would an A4 ever have appeared anywhere near Knaresborough? I know it would have been possible after dieselisation as I've seen at least one special run over the viaduct with a streak at the head, but before then?

 

Phil

[westerner]

I do like the ash effect as well. It could be said that it is just as important as weathering the locomotive itself

The ash is real ash from the steam boat that works at the Museum I work at.

 

Yes Tony all my own work.

Edited March 15, 2015 by westerner

[Dominion]

The running of the V2 was mentioned, but only in praise. It took 11 carriages with ease - mainly Bachmann Mk.1s but with a couple of metal kit-builds in the set. It started smoothly and accelerated to its top speed (faster than the prototype in scale) with no jerking or stuttering. It was quieter than one of my Comet-chassis versions, though not quite as powerful (in terms of what it could pull) as my five other kit-built V2s. If I'd made its chassis I'd be very happy with its performance overall.

 

The performance of RTR chassis in comparison with kit-built ones has been discussed before. It was illustrated yesterday when a Hornby A4 really struggled to lift 13 kit-built bogies from the fiddle yard, yet minutes earlier one of my SE Finecast A4s had toyed with the same rake. The Bachmann V2 with the new chassis did better, though I would always expect a kit-built loco to have the edge (if it's built properly, of course). That said, I wouldn't advise Bachmann to alter this new V2 mechanism in any manner. In what way would you like it to be modified?

Thanks Tony. Some have said the new V2 chassis has a top speed that is a little too low. I notice it on mine too relative to some other models. It is good to know you felt it was a prototypical scale speed. It does run smoothly though which is great. I have one of Graeme's resin bodies to try on it.

[Corbs]

When I were a lad I had a Triang Scotsman. I renumbered it to 60108 because that was easy, and fitted new name plates. I wouldn't do it now though-for those who don't know it's Gay Crusader!

 

Ed

 

I presume it was a racehorse and not an early campaigner for what we must now call LGBT people.

 

That's funny because I would definitely rename an A3 'Gay Crusader'

[Tony Wright]

Just wondering. can you say what one of your 11 car trains weighs? Approximately of course. And is there a wide discrepancy between the weights of say a Comet train and the plastic RTR's such as the Bachmann MK1's?

 

I'm experimenting with car weights at the moment, but I don't want to end up with trains that RTR locos can't pull?

 

Andy

Andy,

 

I've never been scientific enough to actually weigh a train of mine. The set in question has nine Bachmann Mk.1s in it, one complete Comet car and a Bachmann Thompson conversion using Southern Pride sides running on cast-metal bogies. I'd say it was one of the lighter sets. One of the 13-car sets is made up primarily of kit-built, all metal carriages, though it does run on pinpoint axles. Though free-running, it is very heavy. Hornby A3s and A4s and Bachmann A1s and A2s display the characteristics of 'ice on the rails' when confronted with such sets. In fairness, was it ever in the RTR manufacturers' brief when designing their locos that they would be expected to shift such heavy trains? If, say, a Bachmann A1 will take 9/10 of the firm's Mk.1s, isn't that enough? I have three Bachmann A1s and one Bachmann A2 conversion. All are packed with extra lead. Even with this they don't have the ability of the dozens of kit-built alternatives. The Hornby LNER Pacifics I own don't have extra ballast in them (no space) and they'll handle the lighter loads. When I run the railway for visitors, the modified RTR locos are used much less. I know the ones I've built will pull anything I hang behind the drawhook. But, it would be unfair in my view to criticise an RTR loco for being unable to equal the capacity of a kit-built alternative. The only exception to that rule has been Hornby's P2. It was the equal of just about anything I've built in terms of its pulling power. 

[Tony Wright]

As a Southerner, I don't know the geography of the Northern rails too well, and assuming the layout is based in the days prior to the end of steam, in reality, would an A4 ever have appeared anywhere near Knaresborough? I know it would have been possible after dieselisation as I've seen at least one special run over the viaduct with a streak at the head, but before then?

 

Phil

Phil,

 

It's set in contemporary times, so the A4 was one of the preserved examples; the problem is that the tender type it was towing (a 1935-streamlined corridor, if my eyes weren't deceiving me) does not exist in preservation. But, I admit to being pedantic.

[PGC]

Phil,

 

It's set in contemporary times, so the A4 was one of the preserved examples; the problem is that the tender type it was towing (a 1935-streamlined corridor, if my eyes weren't deceiving me) does not exist in preservation. But, I admit to being pedantic.

 

Thanks Tony - I couldn't imagine A4's would have worked over Knaresborough viaduct in regular service, from the thumping of the exhaust beat etc., I would have expected the viaduct to fall down!

 

Phil

[JeremyC]

On the subject of pulling ability. How does the current Bachmann V2 compare to the earlier split chassis version? I've a Replica B1 and a new type chassis Bachmann B1. While the Replica one is a much worse runner it can handle at least 2 more coaches than the other.

 

I should probably ask this in a different section. I'm wanting to convert an old model from a banjo dome to the later pacific/V2 type [steamline dome?]. Just wanting to know who can supply these.

 

Thanks

Jeremy

[Fenman]

Partial-upgrades have been going on for years and it beggars belief that some people have only just noticed. Upgrading in stages no doubt helps finance the next upgrade and might be the only route the RTR people are prepared to take.   I don't think any Hornby Tender drive locos are in the catalogue any longer, but some locos are still in the intermediate stage with loco drive inside the old body. ... 

 

That's true, although in fairness to Hornby they immediately dumped these locos into the Railroad range rather than passing them off as full-fat versions. The 4-4-0s and the 9F all went through this process. The gorgeous new Schools then appeared in the main range.

 

One of Bachmann's problems is that they don't have a similar dumping ground (while one of Hornby's is their strange reluctance to put some other models into it!).

 

Paul

Edited March 16, 2015 by Fenman

[Mike Riley]

Tony,

 

Have you considered why your kit-built locos will pull more than rtr ones.  You say that you have put lead into the rtrs so weight should not be the difference.  I believe that all or most of your locos have rigid chassis.so it isn't improved wheel contact.  They are running on the same track.  So it comes down to the wheels, in your case mostly Romford/Markits I think.  It is something to do with the micro-texture of the nickel silver surface.  In the case of Romfords it is solid turned metal,  In the case of rtr it is n/s plating.  I wonder if the latter can be treated in some way to improved the friction between wheel and track.  Nothing so coarse as using abrasive, but some chemical treatment?  An interesting experiment would be chemical blackening the wheels on one loco and comparing with an otherwise identical untreated one.  Might require tender pickups though :-)

 

Mike

[Tony Wright]

On the subject of pulling ability. How does the current Bachmann V2 compare to the earlier split chassis version? I've a Replica B1 and a new type chassis Bachmann B1. While the Replica one is a much worse runner it can handle at least 2 more coaches than the other.

 

I should probably ask this in a different section. I'm wanting to convert an old model from a banjo dome to the later pacific/V2 type [steamline dome?]. Just wanting to know who can supply these.

 

Thanks

Jeremy

Jeremy,

 

I cannot comment about the different pulling-power characteristics between the old-type split chassis and the more modern equivalent because I don't have any of the former. Though a friend brought a V2 round with an originally chassis which worked very smoothly (the one Winchester rifle in a 100 which shoots straight?), every one I've ever run was horrendous in my experience. Did some of the earlier B1s have traction tyres? Or some other types? 

 

As for a streamlined dome, why not ask about it on this thread? I've used several suppliers down the years - Jamieson (long gone), Nu-Cast, Crownline or DMR. Try Dave Ellis of SE Finecast because he might do one for his A2. DJH won't supply separate parts but Dave will. He's recently acquired the Autocom range (which included Nu-Cast) so the one for the V2/A2/1 might be available as well. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Tony. 

[Dominion]

Interesting question on the wheel material and friction.

 

Another variable is any springs on the bogies or ponies that effectively reduce the weight on the drivers. 

 

I have Bachmann A1's and A2s that weigh about 375 and 370 grams respectively, but where the bogie and pony absorb between 60 and 80 grams of that (hard to measure so there is some measurement variability in that). I suspect the spring pressure is variable even even between the same class of manufacturers locos.   

I also replace the draw bars to achieve closer coupling and use fairly thin plasiticard to avoid the issue of the tender lifting the rear of the loco.

 

A Hornby Pacific is also about 310 grams if nothing added but with very little weight consumed by the bogie, and none on the cartazzi as we know, and I think mine pull a little better than the heavier Bachmann.

 

My PDK A2/3 is around 450 grams but I had to compress the bogie and cartazzi springs on that to get it to pull.

 

Tom

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Have you considered why your kit-built locos will pull more than rtr ones.  You say that you have put lead into the rtrs so weight should not be the difference.  I believe that all or most of your locos have rigid chassis.so it isn't improved wheel contact.  They are running on the same track.  So it comes down to the wheels, in your case mostly Romford/Markits I think.  It is something to do with the micro-texture of the nickel silver surface.  In the case of Romfords it is solid turned metal,  In the case of rtr it is n/s plating.  I wonder if the latter can be treated in some way to improved the friction between wheel and track.  Nothing so coarse as using abrasive, but some chemical treatment?  An interesting experiment would be chemical blackening the wheels on one loco and comparing with an otherwise identical untreated one.  Might require tender pickups though :-)

 

Mike

Mike,

 

I've put lead in the Bachmann A1s, but they still don't weigh as much as a DJH equivalent, nor the Pro-Scale one I acquired from the estate of Geoff Brewin. Because I'm not in the least bit scientific, I always apply the 'weight & see' principle. I've never made a comparison of the relative weights, only it's evident that on picking each up which is heavier. Bachmann's footplate is mazak, which is heavier than plastic, but not as heavy as the equivalent white metal. The main body is obviously made of plastic but, though it's as thick as white metal, equally obviously it's nowhere near as heavy. Even when filled with extra lead (or today's equivalent, which isn't as dense in my experience), they're still not quite as heavy as a white-metal alternative. Just to be doubly-sure, I'll often add more weight into a cast-metal boiler as well. Tony Geary built a DJH A1 (which I now own) and weighted it so much that it could haul over 35 coaches. The down-side was that it 'sawed' through a set of crankpins. It now has less ballast in it, but will still take 24 carriages (and more) with ease. No RTR equivalent (with the possible exception of Hornby's P2) will look at anything like that. 

 

The kit-built chassis are made of brass, though the cylinders are cast. The RTR chassis are mazak (I think) but because they're a block, so to speak, there's nowhere else to add any more weight. I've often soldered lead blocks into the spaces in my chassis; real lead acquired from my friend next door who runs our local garage and has a barrel of discarded wheel weights for balancing - I just cut off the steel attachment, hammer/squeeze in a vice the curved bits into little blocks, cut them to size and solder them in place. This gets the ballast really low down, aiding stable and powerful running. In the four locos I've got with resin boilers/bodies - Crownline A1/1, A2/2 and V2, and Graeme King's V2, their brass chassis are packed with as much lead as possible. There's little space inside the resin boilers for extra ballast, though Graeme's has more. I've even gone as far as adding a sheet of lead below the cab roof in some light-bodied models. 

 

In the case of Hornby's larger locos (and Bachmann's split-chassis ones), there is no space at all left inside the body for extra weight because the chassis block is a mimic of the outer skin. Though the material used is fairly dense, it's nowhere near as dense as lead. 

 

So, by every parameter, the kit-built version comes out on top, weight-wise. If it's cast-metal, it's probably heavier anyway and one can always add more, and if it's etched brass, there's so much of a barn of space inside a Pro-Scale A1 for instance to absolutely stuff it with lead. 

 

As for rigid chassis and the (supposed) better wheel contact with a sprung/compensated one, I don't buy into that at all. My original WC (packed with lead- these locos have the greatest amount of internal space!) is compensated and it slips and spins just like its prototype! And the relative coefficients of friction? As I say, I'm not scientific.

 

May I repeat a tale which has been told before, by Graham Nicholas? As part of our horse-trading, I built him a SE Finecast C12. I can't recall if I added more weight - perhaps a bit more between the frames. I fitted bogie-pick-ups retrospectively and on test it out-pulled anything else he'd got on Grantham. Graeme King was so 'disgusted' that his P1 had been soundly beaten (twice as many driving wheels, and smaller!) that he subsequently packed it with extra ballast so that it could compete. 

 

To finish, I reiterate, I have never conducted any scientific experiments into tractive force. I know bright folk rig up spring mechanisms or even electronic devices to apply scientific principles. I don't - I just stick one of my Pacifics onto whatever rake is required to be pulled and away it goes. 

[Tony Wright]

Interesting question on the wheel material and friction.

 

Another variable is any springs on the bogies or ponies that effectively reduce the weight on the drivers. 

 

I have Bachmann A1's and A2s that weigh about 375 and 370 grams respectively, but where the bogie and pony absorb between 60 and 80 grams of that (hard to measure so there is some measurement variability in that). I suspect the spring pressure is variable even even between the same class of manufacturers locos.   

I also replace the draw bars to achieve closer coupling and use fairly thin plasiticard to avoid the issue of the tender lifting the rear of the loco.

 

A Hornby Pacific is also about 310 grams if nothing added but with very little weight consumed by the bogie, and none on the cartazzi as we know, and I think mine pull a little better than the heavier Bachmann.

 

My PDK A2/3 is around 450 grams but I had to compress the bogie and cartazzi springs on that to get it to pull.

 

Tom

Tom,

 

I should have mentioned that one of the first things I do is chuck away the springs on the Bachmann bogies and ponies. I then add lead to the bogie, change the horrid wheels to Markits and let the pony please itself. That way, all the loco's weight is then available for haulage, and the riding of the trucks is not compromised at all. 

[JeremyC]

Jeremy,

 

I cannot comment about the different pulling-power characteristics between the old-type split chassis and the more modern equivalent because I don't have any of the former. Though a friend brought a V2 round with an originally chassis which worked very smoothly (the one Winchester rifle in a 100 which shoots straight?), every one I've ever run was horrendous in my experience. Did some of the earlier B1s have traction tyres? Or some other types? 

 

As for a streamlined dome, why not ask about it on this thread? I've used several suppliers down the years - Jamieson (long gone), Nu-Cast, Crownline or DMR. Try Dave Ellis of SE Finecast because he might do one for his A2. DJH won't supply separate parts but Dave will. He's recently acquired the Autocom range (which included Nu-Cast) so the one for the V2/A2/1 might be available as well. 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Tony. 

Should have mentioned that; my Replica B1 did originally have traction tyres, but I obtained a spare wheel set and rebuilt it without them.

 

Jeremy

Edited March 16, 2015 by JeremyC

[Andy Reichert]

Andy,

 

I've never been scientific enough to actually weigh a train of mine. The set in question has nine Bachmann Mk.1s in it, one complete Comet car and a Bachmann Thompson conversion using Southern Pride sides running on cast-metal bogies. I'd say it was one of the lighter sets. One of the 13-car sets is made up primarily of kit-built, all metal carriages, though it does run on pinpoint axles. Though free-running, it is very heavy. Hornby A3s and A4s and Bachmann A1s and A2s display the characteristics of 'ice on the rails' when confronted with such sets. In fairness, was it ever in the RTR manufacturers' brief when designing their locos that they would be expected to shift such heavy trains? If, say, a Bachmann A1 will take 9/10 of the firm's Mk.1s, isn't that enough? I have three Bachmann A1s and one Bachmann A2 conversion. All are packed with extra lead. Even with this they don't have the ability of the dozens of kit-built alternatives. The Hornby LNER Pacifics I own don't have extra ballast in them (no space) and they'll handle the lighter loads. When I run the railway for visitors, the modified RTR locos are used much less. I know the ones I've built will pull anything I hang behind the drawhook. But, it would be unfair in my view to criticise an RTR loco for being unable to equal the capacity of a kit-built alternative. The only exception to that rule has been Hornby's P2. It was the equal of just about anything I've built in terms of its pulling power. 

My interest is more in the effect of increasing car weight to create greater inertia in the train, without increasing friction per se.  Not to create more weight and hauling power in the locos. The overall effect being to have a more realistic slow acceleration pulling away from a station stop, using existing model loco power.

 

This dates back to my ~as a 10 yr old train-spotting experiences of standing at the far end of the Kings X station platform as  late 50's "expresses" departed. It seems to my now vague memories that the fist coupla coaches went by at slow walking speed and the last coach not much faster that a person could sprint. Both Steam and early diesel.

 

Oh for a time machine! . . . . .

 

Andy

[Mallard60022]

Tony, in post #4329 can I ask the source of that lovely concrete signal post?

Phil

[stewartingram]

Re: KGX departures:-

Don't forget Gasworks Tunnel has a dip under the canal, in the middle. There is a 15mph speed restriction sign ay that point, and then the whole train should pass it before accelerating. Hence the slow departure from KGX.

 

Stewart

[Theakerr]

A few of my observations from the years:  I am not so sure it is the load weight as opposed to the rolling resistance imparted by the wheel axles in their housings (For the most part I run RTR coaches with the as made wheel bearings).   One mag years ago used to publish the maximum drawbar pull load before wheel slippage.   I wish it was still reported since I suggest it can at least be used as a comparison with what one already has.  I can always tell when it is maintenance time based on the slippage or slowing down on my undesigned and unavoidable gradient (my basement moves +/- 1/2" around the median point depending on the season).  Usually the problem is found to be "fluff" in the "bearings" and crud on the wheels.  Further, My Hornby A4's with a bit of extra weight will pull 14/15 coaches no problem - once it gets them moving (hand of God assist), i.e. it has overcome the starting resistance.   Another very significant component is the radius (radii) of ones curved track.    For the most part I have +40" radii but on one area it drops to about 36".  That is where the train slows down a bit if I go over 10 coaches.  A further factor is believed to be the coupling used on the coaches.  Someone on another thread, or possibly even here, years ago calculated that the draw load is reduced quite significantly (I think about18%) if the coaches are coupled such that they pull through the coach body, as your do Tony, as opposed to pulling through the bogies using a hook and bar coupling.  Side load effect could be significant on curves?   So for sake of argument that represents one more coach on a 10 coach train.  Another factor has to be the fitting of corridor connectors although i am not sure how significant it is.   Finally, assuming one can add weight, you don't just add weight, it must be properly distributed.  I know a Gentleman who had all kinds of weight into several of his locos, but they don't pull worth a kettle of fish.  Basically he put weighs in such that the load is primarily over one axle, i.e. lots of weight out front but nothing out back.  Say no more.

I guess the point i am trying to make is that there are other factors other than straight loco weight that will affect pulling capacity although I also concede that at the end of the day nothing beats loco weight and a powerful correctly geared motor.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Theakerr

[Focalplane]

Re: KGX departures:-

Don't forget Gasworks Tunnel has a dip under the canal, in the middle. There is a 15mph speed restriction sign ay that point, and then the whole train should pass it before accelerating. Hence the slow departure from KGX.

 

Stewart

IIRC, during the 1948 locomotive exchanges the GWR's King (what I call the plough horse locomotive, capable of dragging almost anything up a hill) astounded observers with its careful acceleration of a full load out of Kings Cross.

 

Edit to add:  And the axle loading of a King precluded it from most other Exchanges.  Perhaps proof in the 1:1 scale world that weight over the drivers is what works best!

Edited March 16, 2015 by Focalplane

[Tony Wright]

Tony, in post #4329 can I ask the source of that lovely concrete signal post?

Phil

Phil,

 

MSE/Wizard/Comet - AH no less. 

 

T.

[Tony Wright]

A few of my observations from the years:  I am not so sure it is the load weight as opposed to the rolling resistance imparted by the wheel axles in their housings (For the most part I run RTR coaches with the as made wheel bearings).   One mag years ago used to publish the maximum drawbar pull load before wheel slippage.   I wish it was still reported since I suggest it can at least be used as a comparison with what one already has.  I can always tell when it is maintenance time based on the slippage or slowing down on my undesigned and unavoidable gradient (my basement moves +/- 1/2" around the median point depending on the season).  Usually the problem is found to be "fluff" in the "bearings" and crud on the wheels.  Further, My Hornby A4's with a bit of extra weight will pull 14/15 coaches no problem - once it gets them moving (hand of God assist), i.e. it has overcome the starting resistance.   Another very significant component is the radius (radii) of ones curved track.    For the most part I have +40" radii but on one area it drops to about 36".  That is where the train slows down a bit if I go over 10 coaches.  A further factor is believed to be the coupling used on the coaches.  Someone on another thread, or possibly even here, years ago calculated that the draw load is reduced quite significantly (I think about18%) if the coaches are coupled such that they pull through the coach body, as your do Tony, as opposed to pulling through the bogies using a hook and bar coupling.  Side load effect could be significant on curves?   So for sake of argument that represents one more coach on a 10 coach train.  Another factor has to be the fitting of corridor connectors although i am not sure how significant it is.   Finally, assuming one can add weight, you don't just add weight, it must be properly distributed.  I know a Gentleman who had all kinds of weight into several of his locos, but they don't pull worth a kettle of fish.  Basically he put weighs in such that the load is primarily over one axle, i.e. lots of weight out front but nothing out back.  Say no more.

I guess the point i am trying to make is that there are other factors other than straight loco weight that will affect pulling capacity although I also concede that at the end of the day nothing beats loco weight and a powerful correctly geared motor.

Many thanks,

 

Your point about where weight is added is most pertinent. With the 2P I've just completed, without its bogie the loco is too nose-heavy (it displaying the classic cast-metal 4-4-0 problem), and it just droops forward. So, I've sprung the bogie, effectively forcing the weight back onto the drivers. This lessens the weight for adhesion, but since the loco is heavy at source it'll more than pull the maximum of six bogies required of it on the M&GNR bit. Another dodge was to impart some of the tender's weight onto the loco drawbar, and having the leading axle in the tender free to move up and down. 

 

As a rule of thumb (totally non-scientific), once a Pacific or 4-6-0 is completed, I weight it so that it'll balance on my finger on the centre pair of drivers; rather like a see-saw, though I make sure it doesn't plummet to the floor! With a 4-6-0 it's more difficult to achieve this desirable situation, so more weight is packed behind the centre drivers - inside the frames, inside the firebox, inside the cab and underneath the cab roof. 

 

But, some of this is 'academic' in my view. As long as the loco you've built/acquired will haul the trains required of it (perhaps with a prototypical slip on starting, or even having to set back slightly), then understanding the 'science' isn't necessary. If it won't, then a perhaps a more cerebral approach is necessary (this is where I come unstuck). That said, the fact remains, in my experience, that kit-built locos will always pull more than their RTR equivalents. As you quite correctly surmise, it isn't just to do with weight, though a couple of my antiquities with Romford 'Bulldog' or MW005 open-framed motors will still 'pull a house down'. 

 

Though 'only' visitors can see my ECML big engines in action now (though they should be seen in the forthcoming DVD), I hope those who recall watching Stoke Summit or Charwelton will testify how easily they hauled the long trains on display. All without science. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by Tony Wright