Wright writes.....

[lanchester]

One might level that particular argument against the Deltic's, especially after the national traction plan took effect! Okay, they were not exclusively used on "summer peak trains" but they were well within the "small class of loco" bracket!

I've certainly never heard anyone question the wisdom of keeping them however!

Cheers,

John E.

Fair enough on a dedicated basis. But when I briefly served with BREL, 1974-5, we were told, by a BR Board member for engineering no less, that the Deltics' annual maintenance costs were approximately double those of the next expensive class (which were the 'Western' hydraulics) and around four times the costs for the like of Brush 47's. Part of that no doubt is due to lack of economies of scale - 22 locomotives (nearly said 22 engines but of course in the Delts that would be 44) of unique design, as opposed to spares provision for around 500 locomotives (and those with some commonalities with other classes).

 

So as long as the Delts ruled on the ECML this was, presumably, factored into the ticket price -  but never any economic case for cascading onto less profitable secondary services, except, as in fact happened, just to use up the mileage before the next general overhaul.

 

I imagine the equation was somewhat similar for Princess/Coronations, Kings (with the other problem of limited route availability) etc. Curiously, some of the LNER pacifics do seem to have been slightly (but only slightly) more versatile in achieving a 'second career'.

 

This is a contrast (and possibly to the railway accountants a shock) if we compare it with the previous generations of 'express passenger' engines - NER Atlantics, GWR Stars, MR Compound or CR Pickersgill 4-4-0s, and doubtless many others, which did have a properly economic utility on secondary services after their glory days were over. I don't think this is just because of diseaselisation - the big 1930s-1950s express engines, or the Deltics, were simply never going to be viable if downgraded to, say, Hull-Leeds semi-fasts, or stoppers on the ECML.

 

Which makes me think of Thompson. How far, in the depths of WW11, could he even dream of restoring or improving the elite services of pre-war (which as a previous poster has noted, may have been as much about PR as real revenue)? It seems to me that a lot of what he was trying to do was around reliability and standardisation - OK some 30 years after Churchward. Cylinders, boilers (also of course incorporating the potential for newer manufacturing methods: you can now roll a barrel in two rings rather than three, so why wouldn't you.?) Arguably he went too far, too soon, at a time when innovation, even if it might ultimately prove to be the right path, was in the short term more costly/disruptive than 'business as usual', there being a war on and all that.

 

He had a strong North Eastern legacy, and that railway arguably had, even more than the GWR, a long tradition of standardisation - the Worsdell brothers and then Raven really tried not to introduce a new boiler diagram or a new wheel diameter or a new cylinder block design if they didn't have to, and also were famous for 'rebuilding' (one uses the term loosely and sometimes in accountancy terms) earlier locomotives to be for practical purposes identical to their new build successors. On the other hand, the NER tradition may have blinded him sometimes: Raven was keen on monobloc three-cylinder castings, which doesn't seem to have mattered. On Gresley designs, especially the V2, the monobloc was a weakness - one cylinder gone, you have to replace all three. (Off topic but you can argue the same with articulated train sets from the Silver Jubilee to the APT - an elegant solution, until something goes wrong).

 

Plus side, the monobloc cylinder casting is, as far as I know, the 'scientific' justification for the preservation of Green Arrow as part of the national collection - and also, consequentially, why she may never be returned to steam.

 

I trust readers will forgive these musings: like many other posters, if I assert something, it's really a request for more knowledgeable folks to show me I'm wrong!

[coachmann]

Which experts are these?

 

Please, name and shame them. They were barely memorable....

 

The irony is the Thompson Pacifics are much easier to get round bends because their cylinders are so far back. All that's needed is a little bit taking off the inside of the cylinders behind the rear bogie wheel. This is invisible, and it's only necessary on layouts with tighter curves. That was exactly my point.

Edited December 10, 2015 by coachmann

[Buhar]

In a thread that features so much about building models of ECML engines this debate is surely in the right place.  I enjoy a bit of partizanship, though, as Larry says it's a bit like football supporters and none of us can have a truly vested interest in the remarks this far down the line of history.  Early line-side visits, that first model, seeing something at a show, family allegiance, holidays, colour, home area, books, a snatch in a film, all have influenced someone or another to pick a particular line or period.  Adding to that with some of the colour of history is part of what makes this hobby so fascinating.  Provided prejudices, opinions (and the occasional insults) about a locos capabilities or a company's shortcomings, are light-hearted and people remember it's not a life and death matter, all will be fine.

[t-b-g]

When the P2 first appeared, Cock O The North was used on a local "stopper" from Doncaster as part of the running in process. One of these trains had a horse box which needed to be shunted, by the train engine (no pilot there!) at Bawtry. The sidings at Bawtry had probably never seen anything bigger than an 0-6-0 or a 4-4-0 and the big engine came to grief, not due to the pony design but to rotting and ancient sleepers not capable of taking the long wheelbase and weight.

 

I have posted this before on the new P2 build thread but the problem with the P2s was related to the design of the pony truck. At certain speeds and on certain radii of curves, the pony truck ran against the inside rail and was not guiding the leading driving wheels into the curve correctly. The leading driving wheels were running hard against the outside rail of the curve causing excessive wear and tear. They didn't fall off, or tear the track up, as they went along as some folk have suggested. They caused a small amount of extra wear and tear.If one person can quote one case of a derailment or track being seriously damaged as a result of the pony design, I would like to see it.

 

Fitting the later V2 style of truck would have eradicated the problem but this has been established using modern computer methods not available at the time.

 

I can't imagine that any CME or operating department would have allowed a loco with scary riding properties and a propensity to fall off all the time to carry on working. The fact that they didn't do much to investigate and deal with the "problem" would lead me to believe that it wasn't much of a problem at all.

 

I can't wait to see 2007 "Prince of Wales" on the main line. If it is ever allowed to do what it will be capable of, I think it will shut the P2 detractors up for once and all! OK it is a modified design, a "Super P2" if you like. But it will be quite something to see.

[Class O]

A well thought out post, looking beyond the enthusiasts partisan views

[Stanley Melrose]

Like all attempts to build new versions of ancient designs - a vanity project which will prove nothing except the gullibility of those wasting their money on it . . .

 

When will someone invest in a steam locomotive that is 21st Century in concept and execution - always assuming there is such a thing, e.g. <http://www.5at.co.uk/>

 

Stan

[Tony Wright]

I too am not sure about that Southern Railway van. I don't seem to remember seeing many Southern vans with corrugated ends, though it is really too modern for me to know the details and my wagon books are almost all about the pregrouping scene. It could have been a wartime one built for the Southern by another company. Any suggestions?

 

But it is a useful lead-in to a question I have been wanting to ask Tony for some time. During the period he models, what was the number of goods and mineral working son the main line compared with the express passenger trains and how does this compare with his fleet of locos, carriages and wagons?

 

And a footnote to the discussion of the costs of locos, if you want a return on your capital you don't build A4s, Duchesses, Spamcans or Kings, you build lots of these:

rrloco9.jpg

At the time these were being built the company was paying 8% or so. I don't seem to remember the LMS or LNER managing that dividend.

 

Jonathan

I'll attempt to answer your question, Jonathan. 

 

I have photocopies of the passenger and freight working timetables for the ECML between Kings Cross and Doncaster for the period of the model - 1956-'58. I also have a copy of the appropriate public timetable for the same stretch, and copies of the appropriate BR carriage workings for the same period. The passenger working timetable is thicker, but it also includes the Kings Cross suburban workings. However, the freight working timetable also includes the freights (mentioned by Graham Nicholas) which went up the joint line north of Peterborough. 

 

Certainly, through Little Bytham, there were more passenger trains on a daily basis than freight, though this would be the daylight hours. Obviously, more freight trains ran at night. 

 

So, how do I interpret this in model form. The short answer is I can't, at least with any degree of 'accuracy'. And, which days does one attempt to portray - weekdays, Saturdays or Sundays? On a summer Saturday in 1957, Peter Coster and Brian Bailey spent a long day travelling between Kings Cross and Grantham, stopping off at various stations on the way, the longest time being spent at Essendine. Obviously, some trains' locos  must have been missed fizzing by in the opposite direction, but they were able to record  89 movements performed by 71 different locos (some locos seen twice). This did not include any light engines seen en route. Only one freight was noted (although there were more), but none, apart from the Down Scotch Goods between Werrington and Stoke. Out of interest, the locos seen comprised 14 A1s, 8 A2s (of all varieties), 12 A3s, 16 A4s (almost half the class!), 19 V2s, 3 B1s, 1 K3 plus the single C12 on the Stamford branch. 

 

Of course, on a summer Saturday, one would expect more passenger trains, and most contemporary photographs reflect that, their being taken on the day. The 'Elizabethan' didn't run non-stop, nor carried its name but the locos and stock did - the train being strengthened. There was also the novelty of a SO DMU service between Peterborough and Lincoln which used the main line as far as Grantham. 

 

Returning to my original question, I must compromise - to a level that will have the hair-shirts and zealots brandishing their vituperative keyboards!

 

I have 40 sets of trains. Of these two thirds are passenger, ranging from the long-distance through ones to the stoppers. Why more passenger trains? Because there were more, and, as individuals, they had far more variety in their consists. For, instance, the 'Elizabethan', afternoon 'Talisman' and 'Flying Scotsman' are very different in their respective make-ups, even though they all ran between the two capitals. As too is the instantly-recognisable difference between the 'Yorkshire Pullman' and 'Tees-Tyne Pullman'. Though it might offend those whose interest lies more in goods train formations, I cannot tell one full/empty coal rake from another, however it might appear in the WTT. So, all those trains are represented by just two rakes - one full, one empty. But, I can almost instantly tell which of the principal passenger trains is in a picture, just by looking at its formation. So, in my extended sequence, where some 90+ trains are run, the humdrum freights have to run more than once, with a change of loco each time. But the likes of the Lizzie and the Pullmans only appear once. I had thought of the idea of running the principal passenger trains both ways, but such would have been the complication in the fiddle yard and the 'nonsense' of the likes of both Lizzies being formed of the same set, that I abandoned it. As with the unfitted freights, there are respectively one Up and one Down fitted freights forming all those workings, apart from the 266 Down, which has a dedicated set, as do the single fish and cement trains. Where I won't compromise is in the correct length of any trains (apart from not running a 60-wagon empties - I have to make do with 49 + brake; a heinous crime, I admit!)

 

So, I run my railway 'representing' a typical summer day. If I want to make it a Saturday, I just take off the Lizzie's headboard and add more carriages. The 'short' sequence, where every train runs just once, takes just over an hour and can be great fun. The 'long' sequence, where some trains run more than once can take up to four hours (because of frequent loco changes), and isn't so enjoyable - and, operating should be an enjoyment.

 

If you look at the Peterborough North thread, Gilbert Barnatt represents just about all the trains in the WTT. Because I personally build most of my locos and passenger rolling stock, I have to adopt a different approach. But, I don't have the space, anyway.

 

I hope this helps.   

Edited December 10, 2015 by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

Like all attempts to build new versions of ancient designs - a vanity project which will prove nothing except the gullibility of those wasting their money on it . . .

 

When will someone invest in a steam locomotive that is 21st Century in concept and execution - always assuming there is such a thing, e.g. <http://www.5at.co.uk/>

 

Stan

 

The 5AT is an ugly monster. Possibly highly efficient. Just like much of modern life. Efficient but ugly.

 

The P2, on the other hand will be a lovely combination of power and superb appearance. I never saw one in real life and anybody who did is pretty ancient now. But I wish that I had and now I will get the chance. You post is an insult to all those enthusiasts who see it as a project that fires their imaginations and is important enough to them to make them put their hands in their pockets.

 

If you think that a 5AT is a better prospect, start an appeal and see how far you get.

Edited December 10, 2015 by t-b-g

[Willie Whizz]

With regard to some comments concerning the non use of the P2s on the southern section of the ECML the detail can be found in Harry Knox's excellent book on the history of Haymarket M. P. D. as to why this was the case. 

 

In it he relates details of some of the events which took place between the senior management of the LNER and the Locomotive Running Superintendent in Edinburgh/Haymarket Shed management regarding the P2s. 

 

In brief,  the Shedmaster at Haymarket was under strict instructions emanating from very senior level down south that the P2s were not to be used for turns south to Newcastle. A.H. Peppercorn visited Edinburgh under instruction to ensure that this was to be adhered to. In addition he was also tasked to emphasise that the class was going to be rebuilt no matter what the operating authorities in Edinburgh had discovered about the less than suitable maintenance regime at Cowlairs contributing to mechanical failures which if rectified properly would result in no requirement for rebuilding.

 

A most interesting and informative read which throws light on various aspects separating facts and opinions.

 

Interesting isn't it, how the 'successful' locomotive designs of various companies, once one starts digging a bit, appear to have no shortage of claimants as to who did the 'real work' of the design process - and yet Thompson's 'failures' are never anyone's fault but his!

 

Pardon my slight cynicism therefore if this particular post and some others suggest to me that it is quite feasible Thompson's opponents within the LNER were not averse to doing what they actively could to undermine his position and reputation, both at the time and after his retirement - almost irrespective of how well or otherwise his locomotives have actually performed.  In that sense, whilst as Tony says, the railwaymen themselves may have had little room for 'sentiment', those responsible for managing the allocation and utilisation of the locomotives probably did - or they were reporting to and anxious to please those higher-up the Company, who almost certainly did.  If a class of locomotives is relegated to subsidiary duties before there has been chance to iron-out its problems, and if "the Word from On High" is persistently negative, is it any wonder no-one has a good word for them?  Yet, remind me again how long it took for Gresley to get the A1s 'right'?

 

That Thompson may have had a fair few such opponents within his own company, and that perhaps they felt they had good reason, doesn't make it any less of a hatchet job.  Those of us who have worked in a large-scale corporate or public sector environment (and I can claim both!) - and especially after an unwelcome merger or amalgamation when reasonable career expectations have become warped - will recognise the signs.  For well-known examples from another field one needs only look at what became of the RAF's Dowding and Park after their victory in the Battle of Britain; or the way the real problems and lessons with both the tactical handling and the design of the Royal Navy's battlecruisers and their ammunition during the Battle of Jutland (1916) were comprehensively fudged to protect the reputations of certain people who had better skills of self-promotion and the ears of the politicians.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Willie Whizz

[Tony Wright]

Like all attempts to build new versions of ancient designs - a vanity project which will prove nothing except the gullibility of those wasting their money on it . . .

 

When will someone invest in a steam locomotive that is 21st Century in concept and execution - always assuming there is such a thing, e.g. <http://www.5at.co.uk/>

 

Stan

This is the first I've heard of the 5at.

 

Thank you for posting pictures about it. 

 

However, I don't think the likes of TORNADO has been a waste of money (as you imply), far less a 'vanity' project. Its popularity has been amazing. The P2 will be equally popular (perhaps more so) I'm sure - far more popular than the proposed 5at, which appears to have been abandoned from your post. 

 

I think it's nostalgia which drives groups to build (essentially replicas, but improved) versions of locos which didn't make it into preservation. Because of the advances in technologies/materials, the new ones will be superior to the originals in terms of efficiency and reliability. But, it's because steam locomotive development effectively ceased so many years ago that projects like the 5at are bound to fail in my view. If the technology was worth pursuing, it would have been. Then, contemporary operators would be buying it and using it. 

 

Though it's a subjective opinion (most opinions are), the hey-day of elegance disappeared from our railways many years ago in my view, and nobody would surely describe the loco you propose as elegant. Today, I idly glanced out of my window and a Class 91 shot past, in 'Father Christmas' livery. At least that's what it looked like, as did the DVT. Am I seeing things? What are our railways coming to? How puerile, how pathetic and how symptomatic of a malaise in good taste in my view if it's true. I deeply respect the thinking behind one of the 91s being commemorative of the RAF, but two years ago a 225 set was daubed with Skyfall stickers! Is there no more good taste? No doubt, whoever thought of the new Virgin East Coast livery must have been paid a vast amount - for what?  Some squiggles and waves, not complementing the loco and stock shapes at all.

 

No, the sight of a P2 in full LNER lined green will remind us of a time when locomotive aesthetics and liveries were still evident. Good on those who subscribe to the project. The pre-Grouping regalia must have been the zenith of liveries, but is anyone still alive who saw them, given that's over 90 years since the Grouping?

 

Written by a reactionary old git!

Edited December 10, 2015 by Tony Wright

[jrg1]

The Deltic running costs caught my eye.  Looking at the Deltic site, it was apparent these machines were expensive to run, and anything occuring with the engine meant a trip to Doncaster-and too frequently the occurance was a major breakdown.  The Deltics held the pass on the ECML, as intended by Gerry Fiennes, but it would have been better to electrify.  It would be interesting to see through life costs of Deltics v class 81-85 electrics.  A professional here in Australia who I knew opined that the Modernisation Plan was a disaster, and especially as all of BR's motive power needs could have been covered with three NSW rail classes-all with General Motors engines of 8, 12 and 16 cylinders.  Apart from saving a fortune in first costs by buying an off-the shelf design, the reliability and running costs would have been hugely reduced.

[Tony Wright]

Finally today from me, and on a positive note.......................

 

 

Today, a new pupil arrived for instructions, in this case chassis making. Indeed, a Comet chassis for a B1. What a doddle using the Poppy's loco builder jig (described earlier on this thread). In this view the spacers have been soldered to just one side, but all is square and true. 

 

My pupil expressed amazement at how easy it all was and how true it was with the drivers installed. 

[Stanley Melrose]

Perhaps you drive a pre-WWII car or maybe you don't have a TV but apparently you have a computer?

 

Times change and we need to appreciate that fact.  I don't imply that all change is for the better but re-creating old steam locomotives is a vanity project no matter how many improvements are incorporated.

 

I'll happily model the railways of my long-lost early years but doing so at 12ins = 1ft is not something that I intend to share.  A friend arranged for me to drive (and fire) a steam locomotive some years ago and all I can say is that their designers had no appreciation of the horrors they inflicted on their crews.  Riddles may have been an enthusiastic driver but I bet many enginemen were less sanguine.

 

Stan - I hope this doesn't descend into a squabble . . .

 

The 5AT is an ugly monster. Possibly highly efficient. Just like much of modern life. Efficient but ugly.

 

The P2, on the other hand will be a lovely combination of power and superb appearance. I never saw one in real life and anybody who did is pretty ancient now. But I wish that I had and now I will get the chance. You post is an insult to all those enthusiasts who see it as a project that fires their imaginations and is important enough to them to make them put their hands in their pockets.

 

If you think that a 5AT is a better prospect, start an appeal and see how far you get.

[bbishop]

 

 

 

 

I can't imagine that any CME or operating department would have allowed a loco with scary riding properties and a propensity to fall off all the time to carry on working. The fact that they didn't do much to investigate and deal with the "problem" would lead me to believe that it wasn't much of a problem at all.

 

 

Southern Railway River class.

 

Bill

[billbedford]

When the P2 first appeared, Cock O The North was used on a local "stopper" from Doncaster as part of the running in process. One of these trains had a horse box which needed to be shunted, by the train engine (no pilot there!) at Bawtry. The sidings at Bawtry had probably never seen anything bigger than an 0-6-0 or a 4-4-0 and the big engine came to grief, not due to the pony design but to rotting and ancient sleepers not capable of taking the long wheelbase and weight.

 

Fitting the later V2 style of truck would have eradicated the problem but this has been established using modern computer methods not available at the time.

 

 

The problems with the Gresley pony truck was recognised in 1946 and all the V2s had theirs replaced by 1952

[t-b-g]

The problems with the Gresley pony truck was recognised in 1946 and all the V2s had theirs replaced by 1952

 

By which time it was too late to do anything about them on the P2s.

 

Southern Railway River class.

 

Bill

 

The problem with the River class was poor track rather than any design flaw in the loco. After the accident that brought attention to the class, (which was caused by poorly maintained catch/trap points, I can't remember which it was) they were tested by Gresley on LNER tracks and by Aspinall (ex L & Y CME) on the Southern. On the LNER they ran well at speeds up to and beyond 80mph. On the Southern they became unstable when speed reached 80mph. Once the problem was identified and it was realised that only major P.Way work would allow the to run fast safely, they were rebuilt as tender locos.

 

As such, it cannot be considered that they were allowed to continue running as they were after a problem had been identified.

 

Tony

[davidw]

Finally today from me, and on a positive note.......................

 

Poppy's Loco Builder Box 04.jpg

 

Today, a new pupil arrived for instructions, in this case chassis making. Indeed, a Comet chassis for a B1. What a doddle using the Poppy's loco builder jig (described earlier on this thread). In this view the spacers have been soldered to just one side, but all is square and true.

 

My pupil expressed amazement at how easy it all was and how true it was with the drivers installed.

Any idea when this will be available in 4mm scale?

[Guest Brighton_JunctionLNER]

It is indeed - rest assured. 

 

Am I assuming correctly that I'm in correspondence with Jesse? If so, a delight to have you and your mum visit. If not, well I don't know many other Australians. 

 

Regarding the signals, the Viessmann mechanisms, though giving a very nice action, are very sensitive to friction in the mechanisms, and can fail. So far one has expired but the others seem to be working properly, and continue to do so.

 

As I've said on a number of occasions, non-working semaphore signals are not something I'd countenance. They're such an integral part of a model railway's operation that their being operational is essential. I have made signals in the past and made them work. But it's not what I like to do, so happily trade abilities with those who can do it so much better.   

hey tony!

 

 

 yes it is jesse, Brighton Junction is the name of my layout thankyou for welcoming us into your lovely home and putting up with a little kid in a candy store. 

[Herbert Nigel]

Well the last few days have been extremely interesting (even potentially informative, though I doubt it - the debates over relative CME's qualities will never be settled by this generation - maybe not ever - unless Tardis's become suddenly available).

BUT, the reality is, we model what WAS on the railways in our chosen periods (more or less), whether they performed well or not and, since this forum is about railway modelling, could we now get back to that subject? Please?

There must be other forums where the relative capabilities of CME's could be discussed by those with opinions? Perhaps the IMechE site would be suitable?

 

(Edit: To correct the Institute's formal title).

Edited December 11, 2015 by Herbert Nigel

[jrg1]

Perhaps you drive a pre-WWII car or maybe you don't have a TV but apparently you have a computer?

 

Times change and we need to appreciate that fact.  I don't imply that all change is for the better but re-creating old steam locomotives is a vanity project no matter how many improvements are incorporated.

 

I'll happily model the railways of my long-lost early years but doing so at 12ins = 1ft is not something that I intend to share.  A friend arranged for me to drive (and fire) a steam locomotive some years ago and all I can say is that their designers had no appreciation of the horrors they inflicted on their crews.  Riddles may have been an enthusiastic driver but I bet many enginemen were less sanguine.

 

Stan - I hope this doesn't descend into a squabble . . .

I do not see restoring and building steam locomotives as a vanity project-it may be to some people, and yes, there is nostalgia and an urge to re-create the past, but we are keeping alive something far more important than that in the special skills and technology needed for these machines.  I have the highest admiration for what the preservation movement has achieved-from the re-building of Duke of Gloucester, which could hardly be described as vanity; rather blood, sweat, tears and sheer determination to present an icon of our industrial heritage to the public, and more recently the astonishing restoration of the Wickham railcars.  After building replica steam locomotives, perhaps we can look forward to replica carriages such as the Coronation Scot vehicles, or the Midland Railway Pullmans, or Grampian stock.  

[Clive Mortimore]

I am enjoying the recent post about Thompson etc. when we all know the best class of locomotives were his five 350hp 0-6-0 diesel shunters, classes DES1& DES2, numbers 8000-4.   

 

If you go back many pages in this thread you will see a photo of my model, which up to that day was the only one I knew existed. Only for Mike Edge to post a photo of his excellent model   

[Mallard60022]

'Poppy', I believe, demonstrates that over engineering is too often employed in construction. I now ask, is that the case in some aspects of railway modelling?

I think it looks like a very clever and simple design. Would it ever enable me to produce a sweet chassis? May have to test that situation!

Phil

[Tony Wright]

'Poppy', I believe, demonstrates that over engineering is too often employed in construction. I now ask, is that the case in some aspects of railway modelling?

I think it looks like a very clever and simple design. Would it ever enable me to produce a sweet chassis? May have to test that situation!

Phil

You are more than welcome Phil.

 

Please take it as an open invitation to come here and use it. 

 

In answer to David West's question, it is available now in 4mm scale. The one I have is listed as 'Medium up to 35ft footplate' 4mm PWR4LM. I assume shorter and longer ones are available.

 

For details visitwww.poppyswoodtech.co.uk or e-mail at poppyswoodtech@sky.com 

 

I think the price is £25.00, which seems very reasonable to me. Having used metal equivalents, I can say from experience that this little jig can be used to erect a chassis just as accurately for a fraction of the price. One would have to deliberately attempt to get things out of true, such is its simplicity of design. The principal of using the coupling rods to accurately set centres is well known, but this device does it so simply, and yet with an 'eloquence' in that simplicity. 

 

Since I paid nothing for mine, I could be accused of sucking up to the makers. Why? For just £25.00? Not with whatever remains of my tattered reputation at stake!

 

For those who'd like to see it, I'll have it with me at St. Albans, Southampton, Peterborough, Glasgow and York in the New Year. 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Horsetan]

.... Poppy's loco builder jig (described earlier on this thread). In this view the spacers have been soldered to just one side, but all is square and true.

 

My pupil expressed amazement at how easy it all was and how true it was with the drivers installed.

What a splendid device! Hopefully it will be on sale soon....

[bbishop]

By which time it was too late to do anything about them on the P2s.

 

 

The problem with the River class was poor track rather than any design flaw in the loco. After the accident that brought attention to the class, (which was caused by poorly maintained catch/trap points, I can't remember which it was) they were tested by Gresley on LNER tracks and by Aspinall (ex L & Y CME) on the Southern. On the LNER they ran well at speeds up to and beyond 80mph. On the Southern they became unstable when speed reached 80mph. Once the problem was identified and it was realised that only major P.Way work would allow the to run fast safely, they were rebuilt as tender locos.

 

As such, it cannot be considered that they were allowed to continue running as they were after a problem had been identified.

 

Tony

Tony,

 

The Rivers had "previous", one had derailed on the Otford - Ashford line, but rerailed itself.  Both derailments were on basically plain track.  There were three consequences of the Sevenoaks crash:  The Rivers were rebuilt, the Dungerness shingle on the South East section was replaced with Meldon ballast, and the new W class (using bogies etc from the Rivers) were banned from passenger traffic.

 

Bill