Niels
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Niels
-
-
50 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:
How about the LNWR Bill Baileys? https://lnwrs.zenfolio.com/p933561773
Weird proportions and by all accounts they didn't even have the virtue of being any good!
Whale removed the outside cylinders from the Webb 4-6-0 scheme and made Experiments/Prince of Wales that according to Riddles was very good locomotives.
-
5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:
Of course this was done light engine - City of Truro's load would have had a considerable retarding effect though friction and air resistance. I have no doubt that a Saint would have been perfectly capable of achieving 100+ mph light engine on a 1:300 falling gradient but I suspect that a great many other classes of the 1890s and 1910s would have been able to do likewise - certainly any of those recorded at 90+ mph.
Problem with this story is that a two cylinder saint starts to lift wheels at 102 mph when balanced as the ones used for bridge stress testing (Report 1927 I think)
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, auldreekie said:
What about Chapelon's SNCF 240P?
Or the Maffei S3/6 ?
auldreekie
But this looked even better
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:
Fired quite a few balanced and unbalanced 8f's in my youth.
What was the difference and are there somewhere something to read?
-
1
-
-
A gentleman named Romsey has some memories of Urie S15 practical speed:
-
2 minutes ago, rodent279 said:
Were there ever any 6 cylinder locos? Apart from Garrets, Mallets, etc, were there ever any straightforward, conventional locos, but with 6cyls, smaller than 4 cylinder such as the GWR types?
(I know about the Pagett loco, interesting concept that from what I understand might have had something going for with a more modern understanding of materials).
Chapelon rebuilt a 2-10-0 to a six-(compound)-cylider 2-12-0 just before WW2.
It sired no offsprings
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Traintresta said:
I guess Paget was the only one who tried this?
so essentially the better balancing allows higher speed, so that could effectively be done with any reasonably sized wheel, so an early suggestion that the Raven A2’s could have used the B16 as a starting point with 5’8” drivers is not unrealistic?
It was ten years before Chapelon and all CMEs were mentally blocked.
-
1
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Traintresta said:
What is it about locomotives with 3 cylinders that allows the use of smaller wheels at higher speeds? Is this a general rule?
Does the same apply to 4 cylinder locos? If so, why where there not any small wheeled Pacific’s?
A two cylinder locomotive can run ca 5 revolution per second before it gets impossible to put coal through firedor due to unbalance.
Three and fourcylinder do not have this limitation but uses more steam for a given job.
Mr Webb tried to run express with two-cylinder 5feet 6 drivers and learned the hard way that this was no good.
He then made the Jumbos I think with 6 feet nine drivers and it kind of worked.
It became gospel that express meant 6feet 9.
There was very succesfull Pacifics with 6 feet drivers with more than two cylinders.
The Jury is still out relative to Brittanias with two cylinders.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Dr Gerbil-Fritters said:
ta da
Wonderfull
9F boilers were 12 inch bigger in diameter and drivers just one inch smaller.
Can You make a wide firebox?
From WD 2-10-0 or S160 eventually
No need for Southern paccernacs in all eternity then
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Corbs said:
Yeah it’s right under the cab.
Matthew Cousins painted this some time ago using the LN boiler. I think it’s much nicer proportionally.
The Lord Howe had a boiler of same diameter as 9F,not those ugly corners over firebox, and wheelbase was almost the same as a 9F.
Lord Howe with four driver sets from 9F, a boggie and three cylinders from a B16 and would that not be a nice british locomotive?
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, rodent279 said:
Ore trains on a 150 mile run between Oxelosund-Grangesberg. Don't know about continuous running, but it sounds like the sort of work suited to turbines. They were at it for 30-odd years, so clearly weren't an abysmal failure.
It is also 300 meter down so hardest job was probably taking emty cars back.
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, The Johnster said:
I respectfully propose giving them their own thread, so as to prevent them continuing to be a distraction here....
(I neither confirm nor deny that there may or may not be an element or no element whatsoever of ‘tongue in, or out, of cheek’ to, or from, this comment...)
i hope this is not to far of.
Mr Raven (My Hero) made a Pacific that mr Gresley did not care for.
If CMEs had not been so obsessed with 6feet nine drivers for expres trains, he could have saved shareholders a lot by just having fitted a wide firebox boiler and trailing truck to an S3(later B16/1) with 5 feet 8 drivers.
He could have studied/copied the hungarian class 424 locomotive that was produced to order from 1924 to 1955 I think in more than 500 pieces.
It would have meant no further UK Pacifics antedating Chapelon going that way.
With five feet drivers,three cylinders and a wide firebox it could have been a world beater
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Signal Box Cat said:
Hi,
the Bavarian 0-4-0T had NO inside connecting rods and NO oposing pistons!
There was a single piston moving inside the cylinder but its rod was connected at each end to the drivers via coupling rods. That´s all.
They had two inside coupling rods and four opposing pistons in two outside cylinders.
-
16 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:
Didn't BMW nick the flat twin engine from the British ABC company?
I have not found the outcome of the patent case and if BMW had to pay mr Bradshaw anything.
Can he have been the first who put a flat twin in a MC?
I have owned BMWs single and flat twins and tried some british Norton and BSA and was never tempted to change.
Vibrations do matter.
Also for steam locomotives.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, rodent279 said:
It so looks like it just shouldn't work!
There is a very good, illustrated describtion of the Maffei ML2/2 here starting on page 49.
https://shop.vgbahn.info/eisenbahn-journal/shop/ej+bayern-report+8-_2341.html
I have the complete magasin e as PDF 38 MB but do not know hove to cut out and it will surely also be illegal.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, rodent279 said:
Changing the subject, and going back to 4-8-0's, what about enlarging a Royal Scot into a 4-8-0? A 3 cylinder, 8 coupled Scot would look impressive, and be pretty sure-footed.
Six feet nine drivers is not beneficial on three or fourcylinder locomotives in revenue work and having four in a row makes for a very long rigid wheelbase.
Chapelon 4-8-0s were six feet and if five are enough, a modified 9F with a V2 boiler can I think look the part.
-
2
-
-
The Main advantage was perfect mass balance.
Just like a BMW motorbike compared to british lesser breeds
-
4 hours ago, melmerby said:
I think it is actually the Virginia Museum of Transport in Roanoke, where 2156 is currently on loan from St Louis, it's home.
https://goo.gl/maps/yeSx6XuuLVk6Hjqb8
I think You are right.
It was the Pensylvania Electric that misguided me.
I saw one like that twenty years ago in Strasburg and did not imagine that there was more than one preserved.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, rockershovel said:
Where’s that picture taken, showing a Y6B Mallet and the electric loco together?
Strasburg, Pennsylvania
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:
Now you mention tandem locomotive engines in the USA I remember seeing engine with two cylinders stacked vertically each with a piston rod connected to a common cross head.
Maybee these?
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:
Speaking of different shots and angles of the layout Tony, I thought I’d better post this, better late than never.Thank You for a lovely video of a very sensible locomotive.
I have just read the book on Caledonian 956 class and cannot help wonder how two designs so close could be so different in useability.
Can some here tell me where I can read more on B16s?
I have Hughes,Bradley,Yeadon and RCTS
-
13 hours ago, john new said:
There are several factors here all bundled together:-
1) Was the P2's front end design flawed? = Yes.
The basic design was flawed.
Gressley could have studied the Prussian P10 design with a Krauss Helmholtz design up front.
Very long lives and realising full potential when modified after WW2 in GDR.
Gressley would then have been up against the loading gauge as a Krauss-Helmholtz would have needed outside cylinders to have been placed two inches further apart.
He could have made a three cylinder Webb compound with two small cylinders outside.
He could have made a four cylinder simple like a Claughton
He could have made a five cylinder compound with a central high pressure and four low pressure in two pairs outside.
or have looked at Chapelon 4-8-0 machinery that had 17 inch outside pressure cylinders for more or less same theoretical tractive effort and much more practical power.
The P2 outside cylinders were 19 inch 6 feet 8 inch apart so two 17 inch could be 6 feet ten and still be within loading profile.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, MarkC said:
The slipping by the Pacifics relieved much of the forces being imparted.
Rail breaking?
Mark
Just two points
Slipping protects steam locomotives?
Blue Peter slipped to death.
Ivatt Junior explained that many very expensive repairs were due to drivers sanding rails when slipping was violent.
Rail spreading P2s?OK?
-
1
-
Worst looking locomotive topic. Antidote to Best Looking Locomotive topic.
in Modelling musings & miscellany
Posted · Edited by Niels
It was a Ljungstrom rotating air preheater taking heat from exhaust mixture,storing it in a ceramic matrix and then give it back to fresh air intended to go under the grate for coal.The ceramics tolerate liquid sulphuric acid,so the scheme is not such a dead end as the ten Crosti BR9Fs.And is not much uglier.