Midland Railway Company

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

Why? If you can't see it why model it?

 

Because you know it's there? 

 

But I agree, one would have to be over the edge to model the firebox, boiler tubes, tubeplate, etc. of one's model locomotive. (Unless one was modelling one undergoing a heavy overhaul.)

[lezz01]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Because you know it's there? 

 

 

I just knew you were going to say that!

We know lots of things are there but we don't try to model them. Would you try to model the inside of a clack valve? Most people don't know what even goes on inside a clack, I don't and I'm an engineer, life is far too short for all of that.

There are land rovers all over model railways but as far as I know no one has ever tried to model a recirculating ball steering box in one of them.

Regards Lez.   

[Compound2632]

Readers of Laurence Sterne's eccentric novel Tristram Shandy will be well aware of the hazards associated with the lead weights not being in the frame. Young Tristram suffered an injury to his "nose" as a result of his Uncle Toby having removed the sash weights to cast cannon for his wargaming hobby. (Let that be a warning to all of us not to get too carried away in our modelling.)

[Caley Jim]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... though I expect it's been done in 2 mm fs, @Caley Jim?

Now although I've done etched sash windows, and could have drawn some in an open position, I've never thought of making them working.  Hmmmm............????

 

Said @Caley Jim

[Tricky]

…backs away quietly…

[Dave Hunt]

On 12/07/2022 at 15:26, lezz01 said:

Most people don't know what even goes on inside a clack, I don't and I'm an engineer, life is far too short for all of that. 

 

I do and I'm not an engineer. Does that mean I'll live to a ripe old age 😁

 

On 12/07/2022 at 15:26, lezz01 said:

There are land rovers all over model railways but as far as I know no one has ever tried to model a recirculating ball steering box in one of them.

 

A number of years ago a friend who lives in Lincoln introduced me to a chap called Gerald Wingrove who made the most exquisite model cars to, IIRC, 1/12 scale. I don't know about recirculating ball steering boxes but his rack and pinion steering mechanisms worked as did cable operated drum brakes, opening doors and bonnets with operating handles and locks and other parts. They really were the most amazing examples of the modelmakers art.

 

Dave

[lezz01]

A recirculating ball steering box is old school fitted to army Land Rovers back in the day. It's tucked away behind and to the right or left, depending on which side the steering wheel is, of the radiator above the chassis to keep it all out of the way of rocks and stuff when off road. It's basically a grown up engineering version of the type of steering fitted to a peddle car. It isn't as good as a steering rack but a rack is usually fitted below the chassis which isn't great for real off road driving. It allows a much bigger track rod to be fitted and makes for a much beefier steering system.

Regards Lez. 

[Compound2632]

Enough recirculating balls. 

 

I've been intrigued by some photos on Paul Bartlett's site, of dropside wagons in LMR internal use, specifically departmental Nos. 023420, 023422, and 023428. These are captioned as D818, which they are not; one is given as built Newton Heath 1925. They are, I think, probably 17' 6" long - D818 wagons were 16' 0" long; the distance from spring shoe to headstock is a good indicator here. On my reading of R.J. Essery and K.R. Morgan, The LMS Wagon (David & Charles, 1977), the LMS built no 3-plank dropside wagons until 1935, when construction of wagons to D1927 started. These had steel underframes and 10 ft wheelbase.

 

The wagons in the photos have some distinctive Midland features, particularly the door hinges and the external end knees - the latter have a bolt that passes through the join of the lower two end planks, which seems a stupid bit of design until one realises that the component dates back to c. 1874, when 3-plank dropside wagons were being built with two wider end planks:

 

 

[Compressed crop from scan of MR C&W Drg. 10, MRSC item 88-D0058.]

 

As far as I'm aware, the Midland built no further 3-plank dropside wagons after the D818 wagons built during the Great War; moreover nearly all were of 8 tons capacity, barring one lot of D818 rated at 10 tons. However, the C&W drawing Register does have this interesting entry:

 

Drg. 4833, entered 11 March 1918 "Standardisation of 12 Ton Low Side Wagons (Wood Underframe)"

 

So, I'm wondering if, early in LMS days, some 12 ton, 17' 6" long, wood-underframed dropside wagons of Midland design were built at Newton Heath and perhaps elsewhere, that escaped the notice of Essery & Morgan? Is there anything in Essery's later 2-volume LMS Wagons, which I don't possess?

[Rowsley17D]

A quick look through Essery's Vol 2 doesn't bring anything up.

[DenysW]

On 12/07/2020 at 10:48, Crimson Rambler said:

Dear All

 

The following is a copy of the LYR curve the Midland used for its final power scheme:-

 

 

It formed part of a series of articles on Locomotive Testing I wrote for a railway magazine - until the editor thought they were too technical and stopped it! The following explains how it was used:-

 

 

@Crimson Rambler Would it be possible to re-post the graph and explanation? And maybe add them to Wikipedia as well? (Starting) tractive effort is easily calculated, but only helpful to calculate the maximum weight of train you can start on a particular gradient.

Edited August 25, 2022 by DenysW
Omission corrected

[Crimson Rambler]

In response to the request made by  @DenysW  the LYR curve and explanation are reposted. Apologies for the delay my filing system is next to non-existant.

 

 

 

 

Crimson Rambler

 

 

[DenysW]

My first reaction to this graph was that it was a graph of efficiency vs speed, with the former going down at the latter increased. Clearly wrong or Turbomotive would have been massively more efficient (at its turbine design point) than its reciprocating clones. Then there's the points @Crimson Rambler made about the size of steam circuits, and different duties giving different ideal/tolerable losses in these.

 

So what I think it does rationalise is why express reciprocating steam engines needed big wheels - it was to bring the piston speed down by reducing the number wheel-revolutions per mph, also improving how long the valves were open per revolution, etc. etc.

 

So should Turbomotive have been followed by Turbomotive II with 3 axles of 6'6" driving wheels changed to 5 axles of 3'3" driving wheels to bring the axle loadings down and protect the track? I'll continue this (and doubtless have my simplistic logic exposed) on the Imaginary Locomotives thread.

 

On the Nock 'King George the Fifth' point, all it would have taken to change the LMS classification would have been to recognise - if true - that LNWR drivers were willing to routinely exceed the 130 lb/ft2 firing limit for that size of grate without industrial action resulting. But that would have re-written all of the numbers and made the whole set of classification more messy.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, DenysW said:

My first reaction to this graph was that it was a graph of efficiency vs speed, with the former going down at the latter increased. Clearly wrong or Turbomotive would have been massively more efficient (at its turbine design point) than its reciprocating clones.

 

The graph does not apply to the Turbomotive since it is explicitly for reciprocating engines - the independent variable is piston speed. (By the way, is that piston speed at mid-stroke or root mean square piston speed?)

[kevinlms]

On 10/05/2022 at 01:03, Compound2632 said:

 

I think that does show the dominance of the LNWR in the long-distance passenger business, if we can assume that the number of passenger journeys per company were in much the same proportion as in 1921 - a very rough assumption. The GWR, which did not have a very large commuter business (certainly not at this date) but some nice long lucrative runs to the West Country &c. is therefore unsurprisingly in second place. 

 

We know that the Midland was playing second fiddle to the LNWR on Scotch and Lancashire traffic - one just has to compare the length of the trains! So its lower passenger revenue is unsurprising (noting of course that these figures are from before the LTS take-over). Where the Midland is, I think, likely to have been doing better than the LNWR or GNR was on medium-distance journeys, with more of its routes serving significant population centres. For example, on the London- Manchester route, the GNR/MS&LR route had served Sheffield but the LNWR nowhere bigger than Stafford or Rugby, where the Midland took in Leicester and Derby. Of course by 1901 the GCR was competing for Leicester and Nottingham traffic on the Manchester route.

Don't forget that the LNWR had by far the biggest number of Royal Mail trains, which included almost all of the longest journeys, so that would have boosted the receipts significantly, as these were premium services.

[kevinlms]

On 13/05/2022 at 04:36, Compound2632 said:

How to remain profitable?

 

Carriage & Wagon Committee minute 2022, 12 August 1886:

 

20 tons Goods Brake Vans

Read Traffic Committee minute No.  24718 as follows:-

Resolved

That as experiments have proved that a 20 ton brake may be safely used in lieu of two 10 ton brakes in those cases where it is necessary to have two 10 ton brakes attached to a train, the Carriage & Wagon Committee be requested to construct 75 such brakes by means of which about 60 under-guards can be dispensed with, whose wages amount to upwards of £3000 per annum. As a consequence of this, the renewal of 150 ten-ton brakes will be rendered unnecessary.

Approved

 

[TNA RAIL 491/254]

 

These 20 ton brakes will be the ones constructed to lot 158, raised on 17 August 1886, just five days later. The experiments presumably involved the prototype vehicle built to lot 146, raised on 5 February 1886. The drawing, Drg. 651, was dated 27 January 1886.

So how much did 75 20 ton brake vans cost to build in 1886? Apparently worthwhile to save the wages of 3000 pounds per annum, the cost of 60 under-guards.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

So how much did 75 20 ton brake vans cost to build in 1886? Apparently worthwhile to save the wages of 3000 pounds per annum, the cost of 60 under-guards.

 

As these were built on renewals account, the cost is not recorded in the minutes. In January 1888, fifty additional 10-ton goods brakes were approved at £114 each and in December 1890, thirty additional 20-ton goods brakes at £221 each. So the 75 20-ton goods brakes must have cost around £15,000 and the saving on under-guard's wages would thus start to be made after five years.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Compound2632

[Caley Jim]

Another point is that the new builds would be paid for out of the capital account, whereas the guards wages were coming out of revenue.

 

Jim

[DenysW]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

By the way, is that piston speed at mid-stroke or root mean square piston speed?

It appears to be overall average (i.e. the calculation uses total distance travelled (per time) by the piston equals the length of stroke times the number of strokes per time. Probably the same as mid-stroke.

 

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

The graph does not apply to the Turbomotive since it is explicitly for reciprocating engines

I've failed to communicate. The (over-simplistic) conclusion I first drew was that the higher the piston speed, the more a reciprocal motion degrades the Mean Average Pressure that can be delivered to the cylinder. By that (false) logic, if you get rid of the reciprocal motion all of the pressure (less steam circuit losses) is delivered to the turbine, nominally improving the power available by a factor of up to four-ish. Not true or Turbomotive would have been a great leap forwards.

[Compound2632]

13 minutes ago, DenysW said:

It appears to be overall average (i.e. the calculation uses total distance travelled (per time) by the piston equals the length of stroke times the number of strokes per time. Probably the same as mid-stroke.

 

For the calculation, the factor that really matters is the speed of the locomotive as a whole, since work done = force x distance moved. This is why the driving wheel diameter enters into the equation. The LMS version of the calculation was done at 50 mph for passenger and 25 mph for freight. The locomotive speed can then be converted to piston speed, to obtain the fudge factor from the graph.

[DenysW]

To round off the 'King George the Fifth' class point, I think that you can take the kind view (it was policy to use the weakest members of a class so as not to have both 3P and 4P within a single, fairly small, class) or the political view: the MR Compounds were more powerful in every way - tractive effort, boiler pressure, grate area - and they were 4F, so loads they could shift would be too much for the LNWR just-4F.

[queensquare]

Don’t know if this is the appropriate place to ask this question but I’ve recently finished my turntable for Bath and am ready to paint it. Any thoughts on what colour the girders should be.

 

Jerry

 

[Caley Jim]

Not sure when protective grey paint came in, but prior to that was red oxide.

 

 

Jim

[lezz01]

Now that is a fine looking turntable Jerry. Is it one of the London Road Models kits or did you scratch build it? 

Regards Lez.

Edited November 27, 2022 by lezz01

[queensquare]

7 hours ago, lezz01 said:

Now that is a fine looking turntable Jerry. Is it one of the London Road Models kits or did you scratch build it? 

Regards Lez.

Thanks Lez, it’s 2mm scale so no complete kits available. It’s a bit of a hybrid in that it’s a 50’ table masquerading as a 42’ one.

It utilises a set of etched 50’ Cowan Sheldon  girders from Jim Watt with the rest scratch built. More details can be found over on my Bath Queensquare thread.

A friend kindly 3D printed the winch columns for me which were added yesterday so I’m now ready to paint it and was wondering if the girders would be Chocolate ( Venetian red) or Cream (Denby Pottery) picked out with the brown. I’m veering toward the latter for no better reason than a weathered cream would highlight  some of the nice detail in Jim’s etches!

I’ve attached a less than perfect but nonetheless fascinating picture of the 42’ t/t at Bath in the mid 1930s, it’s 65’ replacement can just be seen under construction in front of the Midland shed in the background.

 

Jerry

 

[Compound2632]

12 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

Not sure when protective grey paint came in, but prior to that was red oxide.

 

Read oxide or red lead? The latter was extensively used as a preservative coating for metalwork (for good chemistry reasons) vide the Forth Bridge.