t-b-g

One of the reasons why Gresley liked the 3 cylinder designs rather than 2 is because the power was applied more evenly to the driving wheels. They got a "push" and a "pull" from the cylinders spaced evenly three times per revolution. I recall being told that when it came to starting a heavy train, it was the best way to apply power evenly and smoothly and that the O2s were better at starting heavy freight trains than the O1s and O4s. I have read of a modeller who set his cranks at 120 degrees with no adverse effects. As long as you have one rod that can pull or push the wheels around when the other is "dead centre" then you shouldn't have a problem. I also record reading that 4 cylinder designs varied in that some had each cylinder set at 90 degrees and some had two pairs of cylinders acting together. As far as I know, all the outside cranks were set at 90 degrees, to reduce the additional hammer blow of two lots of coupling rods going round together.

After battling with some inside Joy motion for a 7mm LNWR Prince of Wales, Vincent Worthington came to the firm conclusion that it should be called "No Joy" valve gear.

I posted this elsewhere, on one of the "proper" Christmas threads but in case anybody missed it, I shall put it here too, to wish all the Wright writes regulars all the best for Christmas and the new year. Guess who found the "arty farty" software on his tablet........

After a couple of false starts, trying to use some etched components that really needed too much adaption to be suitable, we have the first of the cylinders for the Class U. The main block is machined and filed from a lump of brass and the cylinder/valve fronts and backs are turnings. Just got to make another one for the other side then on with the valve gear.

Best wishes to all RMWebbers for Christams and the New Year.

I wonder if it demonstrates that there can be degrees of uniqueness. A one off loco is certainly unique but if in a class of locos like the A4s, there is only one "Mallard", isn't "Mallard" still unique but not quite as unique as the U1 as there are other very similar examples around. Another matter to consider. If there were lots of members of a class, with only one preserved, then that loco has gone from being not unique to being unique, without any change to the loco at all. So is something like "Flying Scotsman" unique now all the others have gone I enjoy watching the "grammar police" do their work but sometimes I wonder if fighting to keep an ever changing language as they think it should stay is a thankless and fruitless task. It is not as if we can ever go back to the days when we had "railway stations" rather than "train stations", so getting worked up about it just raises our collective blood pressures and alters nothing. I used to enjoy winding Malcolm up on that one. I would tell him that he was happy to catch a bus at a bus station, so he couldn't be unhappy to catch a train at a train station. Light blue touchpaper and stand back!

Aren't all locos unique? Even ones in the same class all have different numbers, rendering them unique. It was how we know which one we are looking at.

A most interesting document and thanks for posting it. I wonder if any of the ideas that had been gathered through the public consultation were ever implemented, or if nationalisation put an end to such plans?

I would be surprised if that is the same man. It would be odd for a General Manager to be designing carriages. It is more likely that the Newton who designed the carriages was a senior draftsman rather than a General Manager. Malcolm Crawley always referred to the carriages as "Newton" but he didn't like giving Thompson any credit for anything. Most things on the rails were actually designed by relatively unknown people in drawing offices but they ended up bearing the name of the CME.

Hello Tony, I have only ever built one "Little Engines" GCR tender, as most of their kits were too modern for my period. I would think that the tender in the J11 kit was based on the same castings and moulds as those in the other kits. I don't recall there being any problem, other than the castings being a bit chunky in places. The frames and steps could be assembled in the correct places and I had room for EM wheels. I think the one you have there has just been put together incorrectly. The diagrams and instructions provided were not great and it would be an easy mistake to make for anybody not too familiar with the real tenders. If you don't fancy taking it apart to fix it, have you considered substituting a different tender? If you are looking for accuracy, that tender won't ever satisfy that criteria looking as it does. Or maybe I am being too picky, as I tend to be sometimes. Regards Tony

If you want to make the model more accurate Tony, you might like to have a look at the outside frames on the tender and the tender footsteps. I think the assembly arrangements may have been misinterpreted when the loco was built as the frames shouldn't be just behind the valance. They should be set further back. In turn, that left no room for the steps to fit where they should and they have been put on the outside, rather than behind the valance under the footplate. This has led to them being too high up and nowhere near in line with the loco steps. For a GCR enthusiast, it rather spoils the look of the tender. To me, it is a rather bigger departure from accuracy than some of the ones you mention. Tony

I still have the photos and can put them on again if people would like to see them. The GCR tenders certainly are a nightmare of very non standard "Standard" types. A further variation concerns the height of the timber platform at the front of the tender, which varied depending on the height of the footplate on the loco it was to be attached to and the short wider portion of the footplate at the front. The small side sheets at the front varied too. Some had the beading on top (supporting the top of the handrail) straight and others had it curved out. After an in depth trawl through what we know about the tender behind Morayshire, I revised my thoughts and I am now pretty sure that it isn't an ROD tender but a modified Pollitt/Parker type. Lots of early 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 tender locos were being withdrawn at the time the D49s were being built and I think they reused a tender from a withdrawn loco.

Lovely stuff Frank. Ken Hill and I once visited Roy and took a few locos along to try out. We put Ken's GEM Midland Compound on the "Boat Train". It has a genuine Triang X04 (in the body - no fancy tender drive), old Romford wheels, with mazak tyres one side and Triang gears, with the drive gear bushed to fit a 1/8th inch Romford axle. It was at the time Roy was struggling to get his B17 to pull the train. He was genuinely not very amused when the Compound romped away with it! Why Roy struggled so much was a mystery to me. He was quite capable of building good hauling locos but he just had a blind spot with that train. It was always lack of adhesion rather than power that was the problem. He even used some "Bullfrog Snot" on the loco driving wheels, which created a sort of traction tyre. That enabled his B17 to pull the train but it was always a less than ideal fix as it reduced the pick ups and the loco didn't run as smoothly.

It is pretty much really the same reason. When a worm gear drive loco is started or stopped, the motor shaft can be pulled hard against the bearings fore and aft. The bearings on the motors used in Portescaps were not man enough for the task but the bevel gears took away the loadings on the bearings when a loco started or stopped. So the bevel gears minimised the fore and aft movement of the motor shaft within the bearings. The motors now sold by High Level Models have beefed up bearings to take the extra end thrust associated with a worm drive.

That is why Chris (High Level) has introduced his range of coreless motors. He has had them made to his own specification with improved bearings, especially so they can be used on a worm drive. It also explains why the Portescap motor and gears used a bevel gear rather than a worm and wheel. It is not only more efficient mechanically but it puts different loadings onto the motor bearings. So your words of warning are well founded. I have also known people who used the motor from a Portescap with a worm drive and they worked superbly well, just not for very long before they failed.

I think your memory may have let you down on this occasion! The L1 had 5ft 2ins wheels, correct for a K4. 6ft 8ins is more your Gresley Pacific size.

It was a "grand day" as they say around these parts. One of the biggest benefits I get from having Buckingham is days like yesterday. I have had all sorts of wonderful visitors from all over the world, who I probably wouldn't have ever got to meet if the layout wasn't here. You weren't counting well though..... There are 69 levers at Buckingham and I may issue a written test on what each lever does later! I am not sure quite when we came back from the pub but if we started running trains between 2.00 and 2.30 then we were operating for about 3 hours, maybe a bit longer. It is like a time machine in that it really did seem like about an hour. That is the magic of Buckingham. Best wishes and thanks for taking the time and trouble to come and see the old trainset. Tony

Both Crispin and Stephen Denny still have an interest in model railways. Stephen has just finished rebuilding the old "TVLR" garden railway in his garage and garden. Crispin had built an N gauge layout a while ago. During our time exhibiting Leighton Buzzard, there were several occasions when they both came along as operators and that included at Railex. Watching the layout being operated by Crispin and Stephen was quite special to me. It was lovely to have them along and I think they were quite touched by the number of people who were telling them how much Peter had influenced their own modelling. I think they were a bit taken aback at just how much people still remembered and appreciated all that he did. I get to operate Buckingham whenever I like and I usually have a couple of friends round once a week for a good operating session. It is still quite magical to me after running it for around 12 years now. I am such a lucky sod to have it!

Thanks Tony. Most interesting. It almost gives them more of a Gresley like appearance. Not a look ET would have been going for, I am sure. I can see why it is, on those doors with the hinges too close together to fit the plate but a couple of those illustrated have the wider spaced straps with room for the number plate under it. There must be a story behind why some were different.

Did many B1s run with the numberplate above the top hinge strap? It is a variety that I don't think I have seen before. It just looks a little odd to my eyes.

I was honoured to be part of the St Enodoc UK tour 2023 today. The official photographer recorded the visit, which included a couple of other familiar faces. It was a most enjoyable afternoon and a great reminder to me as to why I enjoy this wonderful hobby so much. Please consider yourselves welcome for another session on Buckingham any time. Tony

I see it often in the hobby. I have had some good friends who were some of the worst offenders. Malcolm Crawley would often look at a decent OO layout and say that it was a pity it wasn't done to finer standards and you must remember some of Roy's comments on P4! Your own comments suggest that as P4 modellers don't build "proper" layouts with "proper" locos that pull long trains really fast (as happens on your layout) that they still haven't really proved themselves. You also keep going on about P4 layouts not running well, when I have seen plenty that do. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong ones. I could find plenty of OO and EM layouts that don't run well too if I try. I have no figures to back me up on this, so I will put it out there for discussion. What percentage of modellers in OO model pacifics doing 100mph on 12 carriage trains? What percentage of EM modellers do? When you look at how many larger P4 layouts there are, compared to the number of P4 modellers, I am not sure that there is any lack of larger layouts. By the time we have Kings Cross, Grantham, Preston, Tring/Euston (New Zealand) Mostyn, Southwark Bridge, Adavoyle and no doubt others, there are big layouts around. The extended London Road was not exactly a small layout although the period meant smaller locos and shorter trains. As I said, I have seen a Gresley pacific with 12 on doing a scale 100mph on a P4 layout. So it has been proved that it can be done. Do lots of P4 modellers want to do that? No, they tend to have other, perhaps more interesting tastes. I had the opportunity to visit Southwark Bridge a couple of years ago. It had a huge range of locos and stock, all in full pre-grouping glorious liveries. From memory, the trains were up to around 8 bogie carriages long, quite appropriate for full length trains of the period and it had a wonderful station approach with lots of complex trackwork. P4 modellers tend to be the sort of people who like making things and many like to go their own way and not do what everybody else does. So perhaps that explains the small number of 1957/58 ECML P4 projects. Yet we have London Road, Southwark Bridge, Dewsbury and Semley

I am aware of a P4 layout that is of the ECML, has pacifics that belt along at high speeds on long trains and runs superbly. It is pretty much a private layout, being built "off the grid", although at least one loco that runs on it (maybe more), appeared in MRJ a while ago. I have also seen photos of some LMS steam locos with outside cylinders and valve gear pulling scale length trains on Preston. There are probably others like that. Not all modellers feel the need to put what they do in the magazines or on the internet and are happy modelling for their own enjoyment. Large P4 layouts tend to be home based and not for exhibiting and they tend to be the sort of projects that develop slowly with a great deal of care and precision. I think that many P4 modellers accept that their layout will take them longer than the equivalent in OO or EM and so don't try to be quite so ambitious in terms of size and complexity. It doesn't make P4 better or worse than EM or OO. It is just that people set out to achieve different objectives. It is the difference between building something the closest to the real thing that you can or building something that has greater compromises to make it more easily achievable. All this "My version of modelling is better than yours because........." is just pathetic to me.

That contains an interesting snippet of information. I have discussed elsewhere the practice of the GCR painting the interiors of their tenders "red lead" on black locos. Some folk disagreed and reckoned that it was unlikely. Yet here is a record of the NER and another company in Scotland doing just that.

That is a shame. The market is probably fairly limited and it probably isn't worth their while reducing the artwork and producing castings for 4mm scale. Ace kits can be a bit hit and miss. I have heard that some are quite good and others very challenging. Have you considered scratchbuilding one? I have built a few more obscure locos from scratch and it isn't that difficult and I find it highly rewarding. If you can use a soldering iron and a piercing saw, the world is your oyster.