Wright writes.....

[New Haven Neil]

93 mph recorded on the ECML, in Gerry Fiennes' book.

[t-b-g]

I recall seeing an article on 9Fs pulling passenger trains in a magazine quite a few years ago. It calculated how many RPM the wheels were doing at 90mph and it was quite scary!

 

The article mentioned that although the locos were capable of high speeds, once such events became known to the authorities they were curtailed on the grounds that the locos were not designed to run at such speeds and that the lack of proper balancing of the loco for such speeds was likely to cause problems with hammer blow. There was, I think, a speed limit applied to them which pretty much ended their careers as express passenger locos.

 

The 9F is a handsome and powerful looking loco but it doesn't score many points in artistry of design compared to a lot of pre-grouping locos. It came at a period of railway history when functionality and ease of access to parts for servicing were higher priorities than good proportions and elegance.

 

Tony

[New Haven Neil]

I think it was Gerry Fiennes that introduced the speed limit - he was a little concerned about seeing the loco on the head of train (it was a failure replacement) when he arrived at the Cross and went to congratulate the driver on making time up IIRC!

[coachmann]

I dont dissagree with what t-b-g says but hang about, how can post #579 be construed as craftmanship/clever.....   

Edited December 17, 2013 by coachmann

[bluebottle]

I recall seeing an article on 9Fs pulling passenger trains in a magazine quite a few years ago. It calculated how many RPM the wheels were doing at 90mph and it was quite scary!

 

The article mentioned that although the locos were capable of high speeds, once such events became known to the authorities they were curtailed on the grounds that the locos were not designed to run at such speeds and that the lack of proper balancing of the loco for such speeds was likely to cause problems with hammer blow. There was, I think, a speed limit applied to them which pretty much ended their careers as express passenger locos.

 

The 9F is a handsome and powerful looking loco but it doesn't score many points in artistry of design compared to a lot of pre-grouping locos. It came at a period of railway history when functionality and ease of access to parts for servicing were higher priorities than good proportions and elegance.

 

Tony

 

According to David Clarke's "Locomotives in Detail", book 7 on the 9F (pub. Ian Allan), " In August 1958, No. 92184 was timed at 90 mph ... with a 14-coach express between Peterborough and Kings Cross..." It would be nice to know where exactly on the route and over what distance that speed was maintained, but I think that it's generally accepted that 90 mph with a sizeable train was achieved on a number of occasions. I couldn't resist the simple calculation of the speed of a locomotive with 6' 8" rather than 5' driving wheels turning at the same RPM - 120 mph. I've no doubt that an engineer could point out many other factors to be taken into consideration, but I'm sure that I don't need to point out in these forums that that's only 6 mph less than Mallard's best with a 7-bogie train during a planned record attempt which ended in damage to the loco. The book I quoted earlier also states that the reason for concern about the 9Fs speed was "excessive wear to piston and valve rings", though that may have been projected rather than actual.

I admire the 9F for its functional beauty rather than its elegance: that admiration is purely personal, so I won't compare apples with oranges.

[t-b-g]

I dont dissagree with what t-b-g says but hang about, how can post #579 be construed as craftmanship/clever.....   

 

Must be the quality of the writing for the craftsmanship and my pure natural intelligence for the clever..............

 

It is an odd one but I will happily accept it!!!

 

Tony

[Mallard60022]

Clever........the way the loco (in this case the 9F)  was described. Craftsmanship....the language and sentence construction.  

Craftsmanship on this Forum is not necessarily always attributed to 'construction/building/painting'. 

OK?

P

Edited December 17, 2013 by Mallard60022

[MJI]

I recall seeing an article on 9Fs pulling passenger trains in a magazine quite a few years ago. It calculated how many RPM the wheels were doing at 90mph and it was quite scary!

 

The article mentioned that although the locos were capable of high speeds, once such events became known to the authorities they were curtailed on the grounds that the locos were not designed to run at such speeds and that the lack of proper balancing of the loco for such speeds was likely to cause problems with hammer blow. There was, I think, a speed limit applied to them which pretty much ended their careers as express passenger locos.

 

The 9F is a handsome and powerful looking loco but it doesn't score many points in artistry of design compared to a lot of pre-grouping locos. It came at a period of railway history when functionality and ease of access to parts for servicing were higher priorities than good proportions and elegance.

 

Tony

 

 

The last class of loco to do those sort of RPMs was the A4s and a particular world record holder.

[t-b-g]

Clever........the way the loco (in this case the 9F)  was described. Craftsmanship....the language and sentence construction.  

Craftsmanship on this Forum is not necessarily always attributed to 'construction/building/painting'. 

OK?

P

 

In that case I accept it with my thanks and good grace!

 

Tony

[Mallard60022]

OK so this is off topic, however quite a few European Countries used ' big wheelebased' locos on fast workings. Don't think many used anything bigger than Mikados on fast express passenger though?

Back on topic, I would have loved to have seen 9Fs working either flat out on a fast line or guts out on (say) the Tyne Dock Consett workings; my video of the Tyne Dock workings can't do them justice.

I have always thought they should have been retained way past 1968, at certain Depots alongside diesels (e.g. Thornaby) where modern facilities and decent shed space could have resulted in more comfortable maintenance for staff. They could have worked for longer on those freight workings they ended up on; oil, stone, ore. Very poor utilisation of motive power IMO. I think the Germans and Poles had the right idea re this sort of diagram.

I only ever knowingly saw 9Fs on passenger workings when they emerged from Mutley Tunnel (Plymouth) on summer extras (usually).

I am looking forward to Mr Wright's probable article on 'improving' a Hornby Railroad Crosti.

Quack

Edited December 19, 2013 by Mallard60022

[Guest 2750]

I've just returned from a very enjoyable two day visit to see Tony. A few months back, Tony kindly offered, should I have issues building my first kit, I would be welcome to come down for a couple of days and be given a hand. I had already assembled the chassis, but felt a lack of confidence moving to the next stage of adding the motor and pick ups. Tony talked me through and demonstrated what was required on the trickier areas. I must admit the adding of pick ups wasn't as daunting as I felt it would be. We did try a couple of gearboxes as both the single stage boxes were smooth in one direction, and like a bag of nails in the other. It was decided to substitute for a three stage DJH motor and gearbox which is as sweet as a whistle.

 

 

Having the extra time of two days, we moved on to fitting the running plate to the chassis. The kit in question is a Dave Alexander J25 and wasn't without some little issues. The castings are very good, but sadly we discovered that the locating holes on the running plate, to screw the chassis to it, were out...., actually they were simply in the wrong place! We also found the chassis appears too long for the running plate, which I'm going to file back this week.

 

 

I should add that the boiler is only resting on the running plate, hence the gap between boiler and cab front (that was another issue where things simply didn't aline as they should).

 

After correcting these issues, she was given a final test around Little Bytham. She has a very slight twitch, which was down to me having some issues some months back fitting the Markit's wheels to to the axles. It's hardly noticeable now there is some weight on the chassis.

 

 

I think it's fair to say, both Tony and myself felt it was a shame there was these issues with the kit, because if this had been someones first kit and they were building it on their own, it could be quite soul destroying and put many off continuing further. I think one has to expect that it can be the case that a kit will not go together exactly as planned, so you have to be willing to adapt.

 

So the question is, has it put me off kit building? Not at all....quite the opposite in fact.

As Tony has shown me what you need to do when things don't go exactly to plan, I feel far more confident to tackle issues should they arise. I want to be able to build kits and be able to say, 'I built that', plus it is nice to know you have had to do some modelling to get your desired locomotive, instead of just opening a box like anyone else can do. I hope I'm not sounding elitist as it isn't my intention, but if people stop building kits (locomotive or coaches) and relying simply on RTR, then I feel we risk loosing something very special.

 

I have a Alexander Q6 lined up next (please Bachmann...DON'T announce a Q6 this year!!!!) 

 

Thanks again to Tony, and Mo for their hospitality, it's been a great two days!

 

 

[Theakerr]

I just love those DJH motor and gearbox combinations.  I don't know what it is they do but I have now replaced 4 of my older motors (2 anchorage and two porters caps) that howled, whined, were jerky and did other non desirable things with 50:1 DJH motors and they are so smooth running in BOTH directions.  My 2nd Little engines J11 is now of track awaiting its DJH replacement motor

[nerron]

Hi Tom,

Good to see you making progress with the J25 kit. I am a fan of Dave Alexander's kits having made a number of them in EM and more recently in 00.The only trouble I had with it was some missing steps It is powered by a small Mashima and a Comet two stage gear box.It was a great pleasure to meet Dave at NE Railex in August and to collect the J77 he had for me.You can see a video of it on my You tube channel www.youtube.com/segovia.

[Guest 2750]

Hi nerron, that looks really nice....makes a difference with all the fittings.

At least it being white metal means it will have no problems hauling!

[gr.king]

It's good to see you taking the plunge and getting on with that loco kit Tom. You never know, it might be sufficiently complete to sneak onto Grantham in February. Whilst not "common", J21s and J25s were found from time to time preWW2 in the LNER southern area, not just on through workings but allocated to sheds. One frostily received J25 found itself allocated to New Holland for a while, in which shed its firebox allegedly fell out!

 

 

Picking up an earlier point, I too am grateful of the explanation of the accolade "clever/craftsmanship" in relation to a written comment, as I had wondered on an even earlier occasion. I am however still baffled by another comment within the last couple of pages. Mathematically, 100% agreement is total, it cannot be more, so how can somebody be in 200% agreement?????

 

Resurrecting the "proper livery" issue too, it all comes down to the highly idiosyncratic matter of taste. I seem to be in the minority in not favouring the garter blue look or the original silver-grey for LNER period A4s. For me, the most impressive sight would be a Doncaster Green A4, with parabolic lining at the front, heading a brand new rake of fully matched gleaming teak coaches with unmarked white roofs.

Edited December 19, 2013 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

Tom has been very kind in giving his thanks for my help in the construction of his J25 but it was really only to assist in his getting started. He mentions issue with kits and it rather jogged my memory as to how much I take for granted now with regard to procedures. For instance, I was both surprised and equally not surprised (is this possible?) that the fixing holes in the frame spacers to attach the body were a long way out - not just a twitch but three or four millimetres. Surprised I suppose because this is unusual in more modern kits and not surprised because I've come across many examples of this in the past. I was also annoyed with myself for not checking beforehand. I think the problem arises because it's a generic chassis, manifest by the diagram in the instructions telling you to mount the brake cross hangers in the further forward holes. Tom did this, and was dismayed that this must have been meant for the locos with larger wheels. Result - the brake blocks were 'miles' from the wheels. The problem was solved by 'jiggling' in the hangers (entirely un-prototypical I know, but invisible when painted). Since I never read instructions, I probably wouldn't have fallen into this 'trap' but it shows how the beginner can be bamboozled. 

 

What Tom kindly doesn't mention is that I melted the back end of one of the cabsides. Having, in true pedagogue style, informed him that 'you will melt a casting' I should have qualified it by stating that 'I will melt a casting!' as well. The damage was done in the classic manner of forgetting that the barrel of the iron is just as hot as the bit. No matter, I just re-sculptured the damage with low-melt solder and filed it back to shape. In a slightly perverse way, it was a valuable teaching/learning experience. I'd done the damage whilst showing him how to solder one cabside to the footplate. He did the other, resulting in a much neater joint and no damage at all. Well done!

 

As for the gearbox, a DJH AM10, I cannot praise these enough (or other DJH gearboxes). As Tom mentioned we tried a couple of Mashima/Branchlines combinations but, though these ran visually satisfactorily, the noise was unacceptable. I've found this in the past where it's almost pot-luck as to how quietly a simple fold-up gear mount and worm/gear combination will run - the recently-featured J69 I built is as silent as Christmas Eve in forwards but equivalent to July 4th in reverse! Since this was Tom's first kit, I wanted running perfection for him, so we installed the AM10. If there is a downside, it's the size of the gearbox sides, which show up in Tom's picture as a kind of extension to the firebox. In fairness, once the reversing lever is in place, the clacks are fitted, the horizontal rodding on the nearside is fixed and the gearbox is painted matt black, on a layout, it won't be too noticeable. And, for super-smooth running, it's worth it.

 

With regard to the gap between the firebox and the spectacle plate, I wouldn't be surprised if the latter item was also used for one of the NER classes with a bigger boiler. The 'fixing ring' on the spectacle plate's front (Tom can't have fitted it back to front because of the beading around the spectacles) was the same outside diameter as the firebox. Rather than risk a young musician's career, I pared most of it off with a Stanley knife and file, leaving him the final cleaning up. To a newcomer, though, it would have been a major stumbling block.

 

How many others have been put off by faults in kits which 'only' the most experienced builders can solve? Would anyone like to start a list?

 

Finally, well done Graeme King for pointing out one of the numerous descriptions of nonsense one frequently sees nowadays. 100% in agreement is total, how can one agree more? Is it to imply even greater agreement? That rather suggests that if you give 100% to a task, job, activity, etc, that isn't enough. Being pedantic, is it possible to have a description where, say, a locomotive is 200% more powerful than another? I suppose so, but I'm in 100% agreement that 100% agreement is an absolute. Speaking of absolutes, I was appalled recently whilst watching an 'expert' pontificating on some rare piece of pottery that, in her opinion, it was 'very' unique. Really? It's unique or it's not, there is no other possible qualification.   

[davidw]

Interesting comments on the  DJH gear box  I've tried a branch lines in a DJH A2 it's noisy but is a far quicker loco than that in my DJH A2/3 which has the DJH gearbox. 

 

Can you recommend a box like the AM9 but with a 30-35:1 gear ratio?

[Tony Wright]

Interesting comments on the  DJH gear box  I've tried a branch lines in a DJH A2 it's noisy but is a far quicker loco than that in my DJH A2/3 which has the DJH gearbox. 

 

Can you recommend a box like the AM9 but with a 30-35:1 gear ratio?

The DJH 'box I put in most of my big engines is the GB1 - big Mashima can motor and appropriate gears. This will give you a top speed of near 100 mph and pulling power to match. If you want over 150 mph, then use a GB4-A type, with a D13 motor. Both a quiet and smooth, though the D13 can give off a slight whine, but nowhere near as much as later Portescaps. The GB1 can be supplied ready-made and it's well worth it.

 

Interesting to hear of your noisy Branchlines (one word) gear mount. I think the conclusion (in my experience) is that most of these tend to be.

 

Will others comment, please? 

[Gruffalo]

OK so this is off topic, however quite a few European Countries used ' big wheelebased' locos on fast workings. Don't think many used anything bigger than Mikados on fast express passenger though?

Back on topic, I would have loved to have seen 9Fs working either flat out on a fast line or guts out on (say) the Tyne Dock Consett workings; my video of the Tyne Dock workings can't do them justice.

I have always thought they should have been retained way past 1968, at certain Depots alongside diesels (e.g. Thornaby) where modern facilities and decent shed space could have resulted in more comfortable maintenance for staff. They could have worked for longer on those freight workings they ended up on; oil, stone, ore. Very poor utilisation of motive power IMO. I think the Germans and Poles had the right idea re this sort of diagram.

I only ever knowingly saw 9Fs on passenger workings when they emerged from Mutley Tunnel (Plymouth) on summer extras (usually).

I am looking forward to Mr Wright's probable article on 'improving' a Hornby Railroad Crosti.

Quack

Tha climb out of Bath Green park towards Midford was pretty impressive, the line was above many of the houses so you could see and hear them going at it!

[Mallard60022]

Boring I know, however may I wish you all and Tony in particular, the very best for Christmas and the new year ahead. It really is a pleasure to have the opportunity to join in conversation with TW and contributors.  I look forward to enjoying hundreds more photographs and learning yet more about loco's and stock.

Sincerely,

Phil @36E

[pete55]

The DJH 'box I put in most of my big engines is the GB1 - big Mashima can motor and appropriate gears. This will give you a top speed of near 100 mph and pulling power to match. If you want over 150 mph, then use a GB4-A type, with a D13 motor. Both a quiet and smooth, though the D13 can give off a slight whine, but nowhere near as much as later Portescaps. The GB1 can be supplied ready-made and it's well worth it.

 

Interesting to hear of your noisy Branchlines (one word) gear mount. I think the conclusion (in my experience) is that most of these tend to be.

 

Will others comment, please? 

 

Hello Tony,

Agree about Branchlines mounts/gearboxes being noisy, and a certain gentleman of our mutual acquaintance has replaced the majority of them in his locos with High Level gearboxes on his big trainset, as they have worn out. The Branchlines components seem to have a fairly short life expectancy, at least with heavy scale length trains.

The High Level ones appear to be coping well, as far as I am aware, no failures yet! Temping fate saying that I suppose.

The DJH gearboxes are certainly well made and more than fit for purpose, I agree.

 

Pete Hill

[Tony Wright]

Of possible interest. 

 

I've been trying out some of the new NOCH grass matting on Little Bytham (it'll be featured in the next issue of BRM). It is very effective, very quick to lay and quite convincing (if a little bright at source). Some slight airbrush weathering should tone it down eventually. Obviously, it's only the first 'fix' so to speak and much more needs to be done but I'm reasonably satisfied with the results.

 

 

The trains in the background comprise a brand-new Mogul from Doncaster Works, running-in on pick-up duties (this was BRM's most recent limited edition locos from Bachmann). It's passed by a 9F (Airfix body on Crownline chassis) on up minerals.

 

 

 

Viewed from the north, the field looks reasonable. The culvert (now filled in on the real thing) has yet to be modelled and Ratio fencing provides the boundaries. A Nu-Cast J6 has pick-up duties on this day and an A5 heads south with a Grantham-Peterborough local.

 

Ian Wilson (Pacific Models) is working on the station footbridge, and progress is shown to date.

 

 

Already its only-one-side-done appearance is adding to the scene but the nearest pier stands just a bit too high at present.

 

 

Passing underneath the new footbridge, the DMR K1 is now complete and awaits my painting. Although the body was a doddle to make, the valve gear was a bit of a s*d! The main problem was the lost-wax crossheads and piston rods which were too contaminated with flash to use as supplied. I ended up creating new crosshead slippers from sheet brass, formed with great care and profanity. I'll be writing up my observations on this (overall) excellent kit in BRM in the near future but, with Hornby's proposed K1 on the (distant) horizon, yet another 'individual' loco is going to disappear from the market. Though I believe it has already been withdrawn, unmade kits of it must still exist out there. 

 

 

A busy scene nicely framed by the footbridge as a DJH A1 heads north past a Crownline V2 on an up express. Both are my work, with Ian Rathbone's peerless painting. The yard is shunted on this day by a re-numbered Hornby B1.

 

Last week, I tried running the railway's operating sequence and it worked very well, with just two exceptions. Both of these were the 'failure' of RTR locos to haul scale-length trains (10 and 11 carriages respectively). Both were Hornby A4s, which, although beautiful and accurate have nowhere near the tractive effort of my kit-built ones. One just whirred its wheels and the other just conked out (I fixed it later). A Bachmann A1 struggled a bit, even with extra ballast and I'm more and more convinced that kit-built locos have the edge. Yes, they have to be built and painted and they cost a lot more (even if I make them myself) but (apart from Hornby's latest P2), all my RTR locos don't have anywhere near the 'boots' of my kit-built ones. 

 

I wonder what others think.

 

[JeremyC]

I think for ability to haul long trains cast kit locos have the edge, probably for the simple reason they're heavier. I have a PDK A2/1 which is etched brass / resin. The solid cast resin boiler made adding weight difficult and it can just manage the Thames - Forth set of 9 coaches that I run on the E&LMRC's Newcastleton layout. The alternative loco, a Hornby A3, has about the same ability to lift the train.

 

Another factor which seems to affect the ability of a loco to haul heavy trains is the driving wheel material. I have a Nucast V2 which is still fitted on the non-insulated side with the original non NS tyred Romford wheels; this definately has the ability to lift heavier trains than similar locos fitted with all tyred wheels.

 

Jeremy

[Tony Wright]

I think for ability to haul long trains cast kit locos have the edge, probably for the simple reason they're heavier. I have a PDK A2/1 which is etched brass / resin. The solid cast resin boiler made adding weight difficult and it can just manage the Thames - Forth set of 9 coaches that I run on the E&LMRC's Newcastleton layout. The alternative loco, a Hornby A3, has about the same ability to lift the train.

 

Another factor which seems to affect the ability of a loco to haul heavy trains is the driving wheel material. I have a Nucast V2 which is still fitted on the non-insulated side with the original non NS tyred Romford wheels; this definately has the ability to lift heavier trains than similar locos fitted with all tyred wheels.

 

Jeremy

Obviously weight is a factor in a loco's ability to move a heavy train. I assume it increases the coefficient of friction, and cast-metal kits do have that advantage. 

The material the tyres of the driving wheels are made of is also a factor; for instance, where I've used Alan Gibson's wheels (though they're a real fight to get concentric and prevent the tyres falling off), because they have steel tyres, locos thus fitted pull more. Compensation, in my experience, does not increase pulling power, even though I've heard advocates of it make claims to that effect.

I think my experience with more recent RTR OO locos is that they look fantastic and run very well, but they are still 'built for purpose', that purpose being to be able to operate over trainset track. Thus, on close examination, there appears to be a lot of inherent 'slop', particularly side-play in the axles. This definitely affects the running - not so much in its smoothness (though it can result in some pick-ups not touching) but in a pronounced wiggle from side to side, particularly under load. I don't think this has a detrimental effect on pulling-power, just the visual manifestation.

Still, we've never had it so good and the poor old kit manufacturers are squeezed more and more with each new release. But, and I know I've said this before, it can result in a 'sameness' in the appearance of locos and stock on layouts, particularly in OO.   

[St Enodoc]

Obviously weight is a factor in a loco's ability to move a heavy train. I assume it increases the coefficient of friction, and cast-metal kits do have that advantage.

The material the tyres of the driving wheels are made of is also a factor

 

<snipped>

Tony, at the risk of sounding pedantic, extra weight does not increase the coefficient of friction but it does increase the actual tractive effort since tractive effort = weight x coefficient of friction. So if the weight doubles, for the same coefficient of friction, the tractive effort will also double.

 

Wheel/rail materials on the other hand do change the coefficient of friction. This has been discussed extensively elsewhere, but suffice it to say that steel on steel has been reported to give a higher CoE than nickel-silver on nickel-silver.

 

On top of all that is the separate question of weight distribution of course.

 

All the best.