Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

With regard to D20s, I've looked through my 'archive' and found these.................

 

 

In company with a D40.

 

 

And, in action on the M&GNR - an ex-NER 4-4-0 on the M&GNR? Hardly likely (impossible?), but it makes a nice picture.

 

 

 

One in early BR guise.

 

 

And one in later LNER guise, by Nick Logan.

 

All of the above are in OO and built from DJH kits, and both (apart from Nick's) I've sold on behalf of bereaved families.

 

 

A real D20 at Darlington in early 1954, still with 'British Railways' on the tender (probably never altered).

 

 

And, at Selby in 1955, this one with a rebuilt tender. 

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on the two prototype images. 

 

Anyone else have pictures of D20s? 

 

 

[Jon4470]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

Anyone else have pictures of D20s? 

 

 

 

I can volunteer this…..

 

 

An early DJH kit modified with the extended smokebox. It’s attached to tender from another source with the correct cut outs……..I forget which make!

 

Jon

 

 

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Mick Moore penned a series very useful articles on LMS vans and how to cross kit to produce variants.  MRJs 205, then 238/9/41.   As these continue to be ignored by the RTR manufacturers (and long may that continue) there are literally days of fun to be had on the basis of Mick's work.

Ian Nuttall's (no relation) articles in Railway Modeller are always worth reading too.

Edited October 12, 2023 by St Enodoc
speling

[thegreenhowards]

All this talk about restoring bargain purchases had me racking my brains. I used to do quite a bit of that in 00, but my main focus recently has been O gauge where bargains are few and far between.

 

However I did buy this non runner A5 tank from eBay earlier this year. I thought it looked good underneath its truly hideous paint job. It cost £200 which I regard as a bargain price for a large tank in O gauge.

 

 

 

The non running part proved to be the motor not engaging with the drive axle. I sorted that with a little soldering of the support, but decided to replace the whole affair with a modern helical gearbox which I do on most of my O gauge locos. This is the old motor - if anyone want it for the cost of postage let me know!

 

 

Anyway, I then stripped it completing, unsoldered the raised LNER of the tank sides and repainted into LNER lined black. I’ve recently finished the weathering on her and here she is posed on my garden railway with 3/4 of an Ian Kirk quad art (I’m still building the underframe for the last two coaches).

 

Regards

 

Andy

[96701]

21 hours ago, 46444 said:

With Tony's theme of renovating older models I thought this may be of interest. 

 

Recently a good friend (Also called Tony) picked up a 1990's Bachmann GWR Mogul at the Filey Show. It was sold as a runner but sadly had the dreaded split axle chassis wobble. A few other cosmetic tweaks were also required.

 

Peter's Spares actually sell replacement axles including the centre axle with the gear on for these older Bachmann models.

 

Being square ended they are easy to quarter having removed the wheelset from the chassis.

 

The tricky part is not loosing the circlip on the centre driving wheel. This procedure was carried out with the wheels in a clear plastic bag.

 

Once the back to backs were checked and everything cleaned and freshly lubricated the chassis ran perfectly. 

 

Other than a few spare parts from Dapol along with a new Alan Gibson chimney/smoke box door dart the rest of the work was cosmetic.

 

 

I did ask Steve at Railtec to make up a set of 3D printed numberplates as well as a shedcode plate. 

 

 

I had Fox lining in stock including the power classification and route availability discs/letters.

 

 

Since these pictures were taken the cab windows have been flush glazed and Dapol have provided the crew figures.

 

 

In total the cost including the loco would be around £60 mark.  This could have obviously been a lot less if you had just repaired the split axles.

 

I am tempted to have a go at another failed split chassis Bachmann model using the Peter's Spares replacement axles.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed this project and it was returned to my good friend in Northamptonshire this week. He is really pleased with it.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

Somebody has been to Betty's.

[46444]

9 minutes ago, 96701 said:

Somebody has been to Betty's.

 

Can't beat a Fat Rascal...

[Bernard Lamb]

Tony asked about models of D20s. He posted photographs of one that had passed trough his hands in search of a new home. Well. here she is at Glentarras. In the real world the NBR built the line rather than the NER and this particular machine did not go to the area until 1957. I feel reluctant to alter the tender lettering. It might be a better idea to get a more accurate tender. Crew and lamp added, also a rear wire bar to engage with tension lock couplings and a dash of paint to dull down the coupling rods. I will get round to adding some ballast one day.

Bernard

 

.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Tony asked about models of D20s. He posted photographs of one that had passed trough his hands in search of a new home. Well. here she is at Glentarras. In the real world the NBR built the line rather than the NER and this particular machine did not go to the area until 1957. I feel reluctant to alter the tender lettering. It might be a better idea to get a more accurate tender. Crew and lamp added, also a rear wire bar to engage with tension lock couplings and a dash of paint to dull down the coupling rods. I will get round to adding some ballast one day.

Bernard

 

.

 

 

Thanks Bernard,

 

Glad to see it's gone to a good home and is being used.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 12/10/2023 at 20:46, 46444 said:

...Will (Owner of Osbourne's) also informed me that the sound fitted models are more akin to a jet engine...

No surprises there, it's mostly steam going through the post combustion stages of a jet engine.

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

No surprises there, it's mostly steam going through the post combustion stages of a jet engine.

Good morning,

 

I wonder where the sound file came from for 6202/46202? 

 

Are there any steam turbine locos still running? Would it make a similar sound to a gas turbine loco?

 

 

Unusually these days, provision for DCC is in the loco (though a speaker would go in the tender). 

 

There looks to be space for a smoke unit (I assume the 'Turbomotive' would make as much smoke as a conventional loco?). 

 

 

Since I don't have DCC, 46202 made hardly any noise at all on LB, even at high speed! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

...Are there any steam turbine locos still running? Would it make a similar sound to a gas turbine loco?...

If anywhere, it is likely to be Sweden, from which country the technique the LMS adopted derives, and where a small steam turbine class operated successfully. This was under the influence of Frederik Ljungstrom, who ranks very high in power engineering, to name just one aspect of his many career achievements.

 

Sounds, is there anyone out there that heard both? I would expect much the same 'woosh and whine' type exhaust sounds from the turbomotive as from early aviation gas turbines. One major difference with the turbomotive compared to a GT machine, the turbomotive could coast with steam off, whereas the GT had to run all the time. (This was the major flaw with GT in rail use and the reason why they were inefficient in fuel consumption and 'ate' their output turbines. Early small GT designs ran at approaching 50% output at 'idle', and whenever there wasn't the power demand to cool the efflux, the power turbine and its casing was rapidly eroded...)

 

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

...I assume the 'Turbomotive' would make as much smoke as a conventional loco?... 

As per the famed essay subject: 'The Future of Coal'.

Submission: Smoke.

Mark: 7/10.

 

Theoretically, slight reduction in smoke production per unit power output should have been possible with skilled work by the crew.

[Northmoor]

15 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

One major difference with the turbomotive compared to a GT machine, the turbomotive could coast with steam off, whereas the GT had to run all the time. (This was the major flaw with GT in rail use and the reason why they were inefficient in fuel consumption and 'ate' their output turbines. Early small GT designs ran at approaching 50% output at 'idle', and whenever there wasn't the power demand to cool the efflux, the power turbine and its casing was rapidly eroded...)

 

Gas turbines are relatively inefficient unless run near maximum power - very approximately at 40% power they still typically use 60% of the fuel.  For extended periods at full power they work well, which is how you generally want your engines to work in an airliner, but not in rail applications where power requirements are much more cyclical.

[Michael Edge]

There's a video of one of the Swedish turbine locos, I'm not sure if it still runs though.

I do remember seeing the few gas turbine racing cars which have been run, they were almost silent in comparison to the other cars, just a whoosh with not much whine. There was an F1 car, an American sports car and the Rover/BRM which competed (and finished) at Le Mans.

[rodent279]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Are there any steam turbine locos still running? Would it make a similar sound to a gas turbine loco?

Don't know whether it is still running, but here's what a steam turbine loco sounds like.

 

[Pebbles]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

There's a video of one of the Swedish turbine locos, I'm not sure if it still runs though.

I do remember seeing the few gas turbine racing cars which have been run, they were almost silent in comparison to the other cars, just a whoosh with not much whine. There was an F1 car, an American sports car and the Rover/BRM which competed (and finished) at Le Mans.

I think there was a Lotus car raced at Indianapolis 500 some time in the 1960s/70s.

[lezz01]

37 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

I think there was a Lotus car raced at Indianapolis 500 some time in the 1960s/70s.

Indeed there was. The Lotus 56. Three were entered in the 68 Indi 500, none finished! A later variant the 56B entered in the 71 race was equally rubbish. The only turbine ground vehicle that has been any sort of a success is the Abrahams tank used by the US. It runs on jet fuel. You'd think that something with only a single moving part (I'm discounting the gearbox and powertrains here) would be a leap forward in engine technology but no. They only really seem to work in aircraft and tanks for some reason. I'm sort of ignoring dragsters and land speed record cars here as they are one off builds for a specific purpose. However there has bees recent success in personal Iron Man style jet packs that have far more endurance than traditional James Bond type rocket packs by a factor of 20+. These run on diesel  and have 10 mins plus flight time as opposed to 30 seconds for the rocket type.        

Regards Lez.

Edited October 14, 2023 by lezz01

[Chuffer Davies]

19 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

Indeed there was. The Lotus 56. Three were entered in the 68 Indi 500, none finished! A later variant the 56B entered in the 71 race was equally rubbish. The only turbine ground vehicle that has been any sort of a success is the Abrahams tank used by the US. It runs on jet fuel. You'd think that something with only a single moving part (I'm discounting the gearbox and powertrains here) would be a leap forward in engine technology but no. They only really seem to work in aircraft and tanks for some reason. I'm sort of ignoring dragsters and land speed record cars here as they are one off builds for a specific purpose.        

Regards Lez.

Jet engines have also been used for maritime purposes.  For example I seem to recall that there was a marine version of the Olympus engines used in the Concorde. 
Frank

[Northmoor]

31 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Jet engines have also been used for maritime purposes.  For example I seem to recall that there was a marine version of the Olympus engines used in the Concorde. 
Frank

There aren't many RN warships bigger than patrol vessels that DON'T have a GT as primary propulsion.  Very useful for getting yourself to the action (or more often, well away from it) when fuel consumption isn't an important consideration; a Type 23 frigate leaving a "rooster tail" at 30 knots is an impressive sight.

[LaScala]

5 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Jet engines have also been used for maritime purposes.  For example I seem to recall that there was a marine version of the Olympus engines used in the Concorde. 
Frank

Not forgetting the four Proteus motors in the SR N4 hovercraft that was also in Bluebird LSR car.

[jrg1]

The Rover gas turbine car is in the Science Museum.

First generation container ships had gas turbine propulsion.

Various warships had dual GT/diesel propulsion.

Over here in Australia, BHP had two classes of ship running on gas turbines.  These were re-engined with Wartsila diesels, whilst two vessels retained Solar GTs for electrical generation.

Large oil rigs usually have gas turbines for power requirements.

[lezz01]

Yes I forgot about marine GTs but that sort of proves my point. They work for very light and very heavy forms of transport but not for trains it seems and I would think that a train was heavy so they should work for trains but no turbines be they steam or gas have been a true success for rail transport. It's something of a conundrum isn't it.

Regards Lez. 

[jrg1]

The Gas Turbine compressor needs to be turning all the time, and driving this via the CT turbine takes most of the fuel, whether no load or full load.  Therefore the machine is only really efficient flat out.

Jet engines are simply gas generators, with no power turbine coupled to a power output, eg gearbox and driven unit, such as a generator.

Railway duty cycles mean that GTs are unsuitable for rail applications. 

The Union Pacific GTs would have performed well working at high speed/full load, and UP invested heavily in them, but advances in diesel technology saw them superseded.

But for WW2, the UK may have seen a fleet of LMS Turbomotives working the West Coast expresses.

[Barry O]

The M1 tank is very, very fuel thirsty generating a logistical nightmare. It is also a very easily identifiable thermal target. A normal diesel powered Challenger 1 or 2 covers double the distance with full fuel tanks than an M1 can. Yes it's quick..but the ride is horrendous.. its very loud and very thirsty.

 

We did have a lycoming GT601 fitted Chieftain for trials.. it wasn't powerful enough, the Russians trialled a T series tank with GT fitted.. they went back to diesel in further production runs..

 

Baz

Edited October 15, 2023 by Barry O

[Pebbles]

As far as I can make out the "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers have efficient diesels for cruise plus gas turbines when operating. These engines are together coupled to generators that power the ships electric propulsion and other systems.

In addition to operating most efficiently at constant outputs, gas turbines suffer from turbine lag. This lag results in reduced responsiveness and makes them unsuitable for normal driving or indeed car racing. 

[Doncaster Green]

10 hours ago, jrg1 said:

The Rover gas turbine car is in the Science Museum.

 

The original experimental one.  The 1965 Rover/BRM Le Mans car is in the Heritage Motor Museum at Gaydon.

 

John