Wright writes.....

[Miss Prism]

Also, Edwardian oils were not good at surviving higher temperatures.

[2mm Andy]

      A good many years ago now I read of a railway's accident, (thiss in some railway' magazine whose title I forget): 

  Work was being done on relaying lengths of new rail on a gradient.  Some trucks loaded with lengths of rails either were insufficiently braked or chocked and stated to run-away down the slope - with unfortunate consequences for those who did NOT heed the warning whistles.

  'And why did they not heed the warning whistles?'  I hear you ask.

  "Answer was that they were all wearing Ear-defenders.".

 

Grayrigg on the WCML - 23rd February 2007

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayrigg_derailment

 

Pete

 

 

The accident was at Tebay, not Grayrigg. There were no warning whistles - the trolley that ran away was unmanned.

 

Some information here.

 

Andy

Edited July 9, 2014 by 2mm Andy

[unclebobkt]

Also, Edwardian oils were not good at surviving higher temperatures.

 

 --  All too true, as steam road-traction enthusiasts know: ah the heady combination of steam and of castor oil.

 - But HMS. Dreadnought - using steam turbines - was launched in 1906.,  and, writing under correction,  I might have thought that the steam-temps. employed were quite elevated as to require something better than just plain castor oil?  If so then oil-technology should surely have spread to the steam-powered railways, especially as Churchward was alleged to have been keenly aware of other but related engineering activities going-on round and about in the steam-world.

 - Churchward handed-over to Collett in 1922. so there should have been an additional impetus to develop better oils for higher temps. during the 1914-'19. war for the new fangled aeroplanes' and tanks' engines.

[Miss Prism]

I'm not familiar enough with Navy steam turbines to comment, but I guess there could be significant differences between their bearings and what is going on in the pistons of a conventional reciprocating steam engine. Besides which, money was no impediment to the Admiralty!

 

I think considerable improvements in oils took place throughout the Edwardian era, particularly with WWI, so yes, higher temperatures could have been incorporated on the GWR a lot earlier, and no doubt Churchward was aware of the potential improvements, but as ever, fitting a new generation of superheaters would have been expensive, and the larger locos were doing everything expected of them at the time, which is why Collett merely rang a few size changes (or stagnated, according to one's point of view).

 

Higher temp superheating was not a priority for the large engines - the priority was to get some superheat into the vast army of the saturated smaller engines.

[buffalo]

-- But was it not Churchward who disliked high s'heater.temps. as he considered it wasteful to thrown high temperature steam out of the chimneys after use - hence the GWR's. usage of a comparatively LOW s'heater.-temps...

Up to a point, yes, but don't forget that the history of superheating on the GWR parallels the history of their coal supplies and each CME worked to get the best performance with what was available. Experience with the first two GWR superheated engines, 2901 Lady Superior, fitted with a Schmidt type superheater in 1906 and 4010 Western Star, fitted with a Cole type in 1907, showed that a high superheat was simply unnecessary with the available fuel. This led to the development of Swindon's own series of superheaters that were intended simply to ensure a dry steam supply. Any more was just wasteful.

 

Larry's point that Stanier found higher superheat necessary on what was essentially a slightly modified GWR design when it was run on a harder coal is quite correct. Whether it is right to say that Collett "ignored him" is another matter. Arguably, he didn't find the need to adapt to poorer coals, at least until the very end of his years in office. It was his successor, Hawksworth, who introduced increased superheat first on the Modified Halls and later on the Counties at a time when war-time and post-war coal supplies were far from optimal.

 

- Reportedly it was noticeable that once the WR. adopted double chimneys and Schmidt four-row superheaters the performances of WR. lococ. thus fitted improved immeasurably over non-fitted locos. despite using inferior & NCB's. quality coal.  But the fitting of such improvements occured far too late in the day as the WR. Board was far-more interested in trying-out its ideas with Diesel-hydraulic traction to spend either money or time on steam.

Yes, there were some very significant performance improvements, but it was not so much "..despite using inferior...coal..." as a deliberate response to having to use inferior coal. Hawksworth would have been well aware of experience elsewhere, including Stanier's, not to mention Swindon's experience of building 8Fs during the war. However, Hawksworth's and the subsequent WR developments were not limited to superheating and double chimneys but to careful work on many aspects of the smokebox to optimise exhaust gas velocity. Developments under S.O. Ell such as the steam flow meter made a significant contribution here. The performance improvements were substantial but hardly "immeasurable". Swindon, after all had a very long tradition of performance measurement.

 

btw, I thought blending of mineral and vegetable oils began in the 1870s or soon after, though I've no idea when this had an impact on steam oils.

 

Nick

[Mallard60022]

1914 - 1918.

P

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the info regarding lubricating oils and Swindon principles on superheat and draughting. 

 

Speaking of draughting experiments, in the '50s a V2 was sent to Swindon to see if its steaming (and thus that of the class) could be improved. Poor steaming was occasioned by poor coal and 'probably' a self-cleaning mesh. From what I've read Swindon mucked about with it, finally using the blastpipe proportions of a Dean Goods to effect an improvement. It was returned to Doncaster, complete with a copper top to its chimney. Doncaster apparently reported that it was no better than before. The irony was that it was known all along what was required - a Kylchap double exhaust. A couple or so V2s were subsequently given 'Royal Scot' type double chimneys - again no difference, yet still it was known what was needed. Finally, right at the end, a few ER V2s got the Kylchaps, principally as pilots at Peterborough (where one of the turntables couldn't accommodate Pacifics), standing in for diesel failure. The result - fantastic performance, even on poorer coal. One inspector had to advise a driver to ease up down Stoke bank as the Kylchap V2 raced to over a hundred, and an officer proclaimed "It was Kylchap V2s which were needed, not diesels!" 

 

I mention the above because I'm progressing with the Graeme King V2. 

 

 

 

I'm installing a Comet set of frames, older Romford wheels (using up my stock), a fat Mashima motor and a Markits gearbox. Mr. Great Northern will, no doubt, confirm that this mechanism performed faultlessly on Little Bytham this afternoon, though more ballast is required.

 

 

A spare Bachmann tender (ex-K3) has been employed.

 

 

I still don't like resin as a modelling medium but here I'm adding details. Why don't I like resin? Stuff like this - handrails and so on are much better soldered on in my opinion, only you can't solder resin - it just stinks, the model is besmirched and you've probably breathed in deadly gasses! Still, my car's body is made of resin (and fibreglass) and that shifts, so perhaps it isn't all that bad. Anyway, this body is far superior to the Bachmann V2 in every way, whatever it's made of. 

 

 

Painted and ready for lining, numbering and lettering. I'm after a V2, still in BR black in '57/'58, towing a tender with stepped-out coping. I'll look it up, but any suggestions, please? 

 

Certainly the surface finish isn't in the same class as sheet metal, though it's on a par with some cast metal kits. Still, a slightly 'open' texture will be ideal for subsequent weathering - once I've put the motion and valve gear together!

 

A full report will be appearing in BRM. 

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Guest 2750]

Evening Tony

 

I've just had a look through the usual sources, it's a difficult tender to pin down. Found one but it was a Scottish example. I do have a Bachmann B1 type tender kicking about should you want to do one of the more common types, it might need repainting however.

 

I'll keep having a look though for a suitable type with flared GS tender.

[The Stationmaster]

Nice to see the thread back on course Tony, and it's turning out to be quite a nice looking engine despite being made out of that funny stuff.  The pick-ups look interesting, any chance of a close up view please?

[LNER4479]

Ye Gods - you blink and another V2 appears!

 

Looking forward to seeing one of your 'classic' three quarter views and no doubt the comparison line ups with other V2 modelling options so we can fully appreciate the differences and the fidelity of Graeme's body (not sure that came out quite right...)

[gr.king]

I'm glad to see that it has produced a result.

 

"older Romford wheels (using up my stock)" - admirable thrift!

 

I'm interested in the comment about the surface finish. I thought my own example had a very smooth surface finish after a coat or two of Halfrauds grey rattle-can primer with gentle rubbing down of obvious imperfections, followed by evenly applied "just wet" coats of thinned Precision Doncaster Green enamel via a bottom-feed single action airbrush. Obviously if you want a key to retain weathering that doesn't rub off due to handling then an "open" surface finish may be a bonus.

[Tony Wright]

I'm glad to see that it has produced a result.

 

"older Romford wheels (using up my stock)" - admirable thrift!

 

I'm interested in the comment about the surface finish. I thought my own example had a very smooth surface finish after a coat or two of Halfrauds grey rattle-can primer with gentle rubbing down of obvious imperfections, followed by evenly applied "just wet" coats of thinned Precision Doncaster Green enamel via a bottom-feed single action airbrush. Obviously if you want a key to retain weathering that doesn't rub off due to handling then an "open" surface finish may be a bonus.

I've probably not explained about the surface finish properly. 

 

I did rub down a few slight surface imperfections after priming, especially around the washout-plugs (how do you fix these without getting in a mess? With solder one just cleans up afterwards without any risk of damage to the parent material, especially if it's nickel silver/brass). It's just that in comparison with the nickel silver of the Jamieson kit, the resin surface can never be as smooth. 

 

Since I don't own an airbrush, the top coat of black was applied using Halford's satin black acrylic. This gives a coarser surface finish than an airbrush at source, so part of that 'open' texture is to do with that process as well. And, you're right, because it'll be quite substantially weathered (to represent 60837 in typical 50A condition), then the slightly coarser surface will be a bonus. 

 

As you might have expected, I approached the whole process with suspicion. In it's 'milky-bar' state, I considered selling it to Gilbert Barnatt (after I'd painted it), but, after painting, it's going to remain in Lincolnshire. He's now glum. I admit, I'll never be 'converted' - the workshop floor was covered in resin scrapings and tiny spirals after drilling (no worse than metal equivalents?) and, as usual with glueing, superglue and epoxy fumes filled the place (no worse than flux?). But, as a 'quicky' with regard to the production of another V2, especially in comparison with Bachmann's body, I commend it. Don't waste your time fitting a nasty split-chassis underneath it, but the latest Bachmann chassis fits (or should) with ease. Or, go one better, as I've done, and build a Comet set of frames for it. 

 

Since mine was given to me as an 'experiment', what do you charge for the resin body, Graeme? I imagine it's excellent value

 

I should also point out that I substituted a turned-brass chimney, brass buffers and sourced the sandbox fillers from my spares box. Have you made resin patterns from them yet? 

[Tony Wright]

Nice to see the thread back on course Tony, and it's turning out to be quite a nice looking engine despite being made out of that funny stuff.  The pick-ups look interesting, any chance of a close up view please?

Of course - my pleasure Mike.

 

 

My pick-ups are made from 26 SWG (.45mm) straight nickel silver wire (brass equivalent isn't 'springy' enough), soldered to PCB strips pre-glued to flat spacers in the bottom of the frames. The wires are sheaved with small-bore PVC tubing (anyone know where you can get this now? My stock is running low - it was given to me by a BT engineer years ago). I use snipe-nosed pliers to bend the wires onto the backs of the insulated tyres, sometimes (as here) putting a curve in the end. Because of the design of the gearbox, the middle pick-up had to be jiggled and joggled a bit to fit. Current return is via the uninsulated wheels on the opposite side. Since I don't suffer from DCC, there's no need to insulate the frames. Continuity between the PCB strips is by insulated, flexible thin wire.

 

 

Here's a completed Comet set of V2 frames, with a similar arrangement of pick-ups, this time just straight contact with the backs of the flanges. The gearbox design is different, so the pick-ups are bespoke. Continuity between the pick-up pads is via a sheaved piece of 26 SWG nickel silver wire in this case.

 

 

The same arrangement on an A2. Note the extra extension of wire from the rear pick-up for the attachment of a small crocodile clip for future maintenance purposes.

 

 

It works just the same in EM Gauge, on another A2 chassis (for use on Retford). 

 

You'll note I never paint areas of frames (particularly pick-ups) that cannot be seen unless the loco crashes and tumbles over. Recently, I've had to adjust frames/pick-ups on locos built by others where everything was painted black. What a fag! If it can't be seen, why waste paint and time? 

Edited July 10, 2014 by Tony Wright

[St Enodoc]

Since I don't suffer from DCC, there's no need to insulate the frames.

Tony, you don't need to insulate the frames for DCC any more than you do for DC.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, you don't need to insulate the frames for DCC any more than you do for DC.

But isn't it better to do so, just in case of the odd short-circuit? 

 

With mine, if, say, an insulated bogie wheel just touches the frames, all I get is a stutter. My experience with DCC (with locos I've built for customers) is if that scenario occurs, everything shuts down. In one case, the loco lost its address and had to be re-programmed. I just couldn't be bothered with such a nuisance. Yes, if it's a big short on my layout, the loco stops. But, when sorted, off it goes. Another unwanted side-effect of a post-short on a DCC system was a DMU just taking off by itself, under no control and oblivious to any pushing of buttons.

 

Several of my locos are equipped with D11 or D13, open-framed motors. Fitted to a DJH gearbox these give incredibly powerful results. Great for me, except one brush contact is directly in contact with the motor frame - not insulated. So, no means of isolating the motor armature/frame, so no DCC.

 

No DCC? Good. Anyway, my prejudices with regard to this are well known. As I've said before, the very worst operating layout I have ever seen (actually no operation at all) was DCC-equipped, yet it was a visual (if entirely static) masterpiece.  

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Tony,

I dearly hope that I'm not prolonging the (rotten) old chestnut of DC vs DCC but - if it is good practice to wire say, a layout following one convention i.e. two wires to each piece of track, then would it not be good practice to follow a similar discipline when wiring up a locomotive chassis, please?

Or is it that your "stutter" is of such minor inconvenience that it's simply not worthwhile compared to the extra work necessary?

 

I ask as I have absolutely no experience of metal locomotive building but am dithering, about to dip my toe in the water shortly!

Cheers,

John E.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

I dearly hope that I'm not prolonging the (rotten) old chestnut of DC vs DCC but - if it is good practice to wire say, a layout following one convention i.e. two wires to each piece of track, then would it not be good practice to follow a similar discipline when wiring up a locomotive chassis, please?

Or is it that your "stutter" is of such minor inconvenience that it's simply not worthwhile compared to the extra work necessary?

 

I ask as I have absolutely no experience of metal locomotive building but am dithering, about to dip my toe in the water shortly!

Cheers,

John E.

John,

         Good practice is good practice whether it's to do with wiring a layout or arranging the pick-ups on a loco. 

 

I admit, as well, to being disingenuous with regard to my locos 'stuttering'. They don't, neither the hundreds I've built for myself nor the hundreds I've built for others. If there was a stutter, I'd investigate and cure it; either by removing some of the frame or the inside of splashers (to give greater clearance) or making sure the pick-ups weren't fouling.

 

In theory, to have a chassis electrically dead is good practice because it minimises the risk of a short circuit, even if a bogie or pony touches the frames. But, you never get anything for nothing. Another set of pick-ups is needed with all the potential problems of adjustment and continuity. To accommodate my pick-up system, springs usually have to be removed, but only on one side; with a dead chassis all springs would need to go. Because I frequently have all the 'return' wheels as live too - bogie, pony and tender, I have a huge path for the electricity to follow, at least on the live side. With a dead chassis, to have the same bonus (at least on 50% of the circuit), pick-ups would be needed on bogies, ponies and tenders. 

 

I admit, on some loco types, a dead chassis is an essential. I have two B16/1s and for the bogie wheels not to touch the cylinders on anything under 5' curves is impossible, so both of them have dead chassis. 

 

Where I thinks it's best practice to have a dead chassis with DCC is in the case of an all-metal loco. With a loco with a live chassis, the only bits on the whole thing with the opposite polarity to everything else are the tyres on the wheels of the drivers (and the appropriate carrying wheels). All the body (and tender) are live. If for whatever reason an un-sheaved chip (yes, I know they should be protected) touches the inside of the body, the result can be disastrous. In two cases I fried chips through this ignorance - they were destroyed in an instant. 

 

Finally, might I ask a question with regard to DCC-installation, please? At least three reliable sources have told me it's best to fit a decoder as far as is practicable from the motor. I assume this is to obviate potential heat damage. Those same sources tell me that it is not good practice to fix a decoder directly to the motor with insulation tape, so much so that it causes interference against the body. Yet, that's what I had to de-install recently. Which is right, please?

 

Me? I avoid all such DCC-issues by not having anything to do with it. 

Edited July 10, 2014 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

Regarding the V2 bodies again, I agree that it is a tricky task to glue the oval mudhole covers to the lower firebox sides without getting glue where it isn't wanted. I found it difficult to decide whether to mould the mudholes as part of the body or whether to just put the locating dimples there. I may have made the wrong decision in the end, but I was considering two other factors, one being the avoidance of body rejects if air bubbles tended to cling to the mudhole details, the other being the desire to leave a clean firebox surface ready for those preferring to fit more exotic 3D multi-part etched mudholes. Suggested better answers to this problem would be gladly received.

 

I managed to produce a small batch of the bodies in the Spring, including the majority of the essential resin fittings for each one, for £44 a time. The sand filler moulds and castings await my attention when I can get back to the V2 project, probably as I finish off the outstanding jobs on my own model, which still needs the parts of the firebox below running plate level, the supporting cross stay for the firebox front on the frames, cab glazing and cab doors. It may get some Comet valve gear too.

 

Although attention has to be focussed on jobs other than V2 casting during the Summer months, I may be able to produce some more bodies in the early Autumn, unless Bachmann are kind enough to meet everyone's needs at a stroke in ten days time. If I do make more then mould renewal may become necessary, in which case a different approach to the firebox fittings may feature. I shall have to take a fresh look at costs too.

[Barry O]

In theory, to have a chassis electrically dead is good practice because it minimises the risk of a short circuit, even if a bogie or pony touches the frames. But, you never get anything for nothing. Another set of pick-ups is needed with all the potential problems of adjustment and continuity. To accommodate my pick-up system, springs usually have to be removed, but only on one side; with a dead chassis all springs would need to go. Because I frequently have all the 'return' wheels as live too - bogie, pony and tender, I have a huge path for the electricity to follow, at least on the live side. With a dead chassis, to have the same bonus (at least on 50% of the circuit), pick-ups would be needed on bogies, ponies and tenders. 

 

I admit, on some loco types, a dead chassis is an essential. I have two B16/1s and for the bogie wheels not to touch the cylinders on anything under 5' curves is impossible, so both of them have dead chassis. 

 

Where I thinks it's best practice to have a dead chassis with DCC is in the case of an all-metal loco. With a loco with a live chassis, the only bits on the whole thing with the opposite polarity to everything else are the tyres on the wheels of the drivers (and the appropriate carrying wheels). All the body (and tender) are live. If for whatever reason an un-sheaved chip (yes, I know they should be protected) touches the inside of the body, the result can be disastrous. In two cases I fried chips through this ignorance - they were destroyed in an instant. 

 

Finally, might I ask a question with regard to DCC-installation, please? At least three reliable sources have told me it's best to fit a decoder as far as is practicable from the motor. I assume this is to obviate potential heat damage. Those same sources tell me that it is not good practice to fix a decoder directly to the motor with insulation tape, so much so that it causes interference against the body. Yet, that's what I had to de-install recently. Which is right, please?

 

Me? I avoid all such DCC-issues by not having anything to do with it. 

It really is good to use pick ups on a "dead" chassis if you use any form of couplings which are metal attached to a chassis...in my case DGs. If you couple a loco which has a "live" chassis to another one - its Ok so long as you have the  same side wheels picking up -- otherwise sparks are to be seen!

 

On the DCC installations I have undertaken:

 

1 plug and play - the manufacturers have their plugs all over the place but generally away from the motor

 

2 where I have to fit it to RTR - any space available - ie Bachmann 08 is in the cab roof!

3 in scratchbuilt/kit built locos - anywhere you can get them to fit...DJH A1s and duchesses have them in the boiler, brassmaster Jubilees in the tender.... and Mike Edges' Princesses are in the ash pan. a Zimo fits in there just fine in EM...

 

I have had a loco to sound chip which had had its decoder fitted by taping it onto teh Portescap motor - it had run a bit with little or no problems..

 

barry

Edited July 10, 2014 by Barry O

[Tony Wright]

It really is good to use pick ups on a "dead" chassis if you use any form of couplings which are metal attached to a chassis...in my case DGs. If you couple a loco which has a "live" chassis to another one - its Ok so long as you have the  same side wheels picking up -- otherwise sparks are to be seen!

 

On the DCC installations I have undertaken:

 

1 plug and play - the manufacturers have their plugs all over the place but generally away from the motor

 

2 where I have to fit it to RTR - any space available - ie Bachmann 08 is in the cab roof!

3 in scratchbuilt/kit built locos - anywhere you can get them to fit...DJH A1s and duchesses have them in the boiler, brassmaster Jubileees in teh tender.... and Miek Edges' Princesses are in the ash pan. a Zimo fits in there just fine in EM...

 

I have had a loco to sound chip which had had its decoder fitted by taping it onto teh Portescap motor - it had run a bit with little or no problems..

 

barry

Thanks Barry.

 

It's very rare though for Portescaps to get hot, or so I believe.

 

Even the best can motors can get hot under constant hard use, so it's best to keep the chips away from them I assume. 

 

Anyway, the 'correct' placing of decoders is an academic question as far as I'm concerned. I doubt if I'll be de-DCCing anything in the near future and probably won't be installing any more chips at all. 

 

And so to finishing off the latest V2....................................

[MJI]

I must be a luddite I still use a Hammant & Morgan Safety Minor

[Allegheny1600]

Many thanks indeed for your comprehensive reply Tony and thanks to Barry O for answering your question.

Yes! I am a fan of Digital operation but not to sneer at those for whom Analogue is their preferred means of power. Both systems have their pro's & con's in my book and each can or should be able to learn from the other.

My own experience is strictly with largely plastic based models or at least metal chassis & bodies being properly insulated against inadvertent contact (European & US models) however I have a couple or so brass models that I'd like to fit decoders in.

I will be following the convention of insulating the motor completely, possibly (probably!) fitting extra pick-ups, ensuring the decoder is correctly shielded, well away from the motor & gears(!) and definitely using very fine wires to connect it all up.

Just got to work up the guts to dismantle expensive models, he, he!

Best regards,

John Edge.

 

PS Nothing wrong with that, MJI!

Edited July 10, 2014 by Allegheny1600

[MJI]

I do have a Gaugemaster D as well, my worst controller is H&M Commander, coreless hate it

[Tony Wright]

I must be a luddite I still use a Hammant & Morgan Safety Minor

 Martin,

 

Both of are followers of Ned Ludd then. Every loco I make is tested using the trusty H & M Safety Minor, always on full wave.

 

For test purposes in my shed I use an H&M Clipper and for the fiddle yard I use an H&M Duette. The M&GNR section is controlled by another Clipper and a further Clipper is kept as a spare - brilliant control boxes all. 

[MJI]

 Martin,

 

Both of are followers of Ned Ludd then. Every loco I make is tested using the trusty H & M Safety Minor, always on full wave.

 

For test purposes in my shed I use an H&M Clipper and for the fiddle yard I use an H&M Duette. The M&GNR section is controlled by another Clipper and a further Clipper is kept as a spare - brilliant control boxes all. 

 

 

To be honest I have had few dealings with the variable resistor type, tarin set controllers when small and used a Duette in a model shop, I nearly bought a SH Powermaster as well