Jump to content

Rails Announce OO 18000 Gas Turbine Locomotive


Oliver Rails
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

“All four axles,”

Excuse me if i am being a little pedantic but while the spec (copied from an email I received recently for the 18100 , E1000 & E2001) does say "all 4 axles "  the rest of the spec indicates  "Powered wheels on outer axles of each bogie " which is common with Heljans practice of having the centre wheels of 6 wheel bogies unpowered (eg class 47 & EM2)

 

 

Model Specification Include:

• Five pole motor driving all four axles (two on each bogie) with flywheels
Powered wheels on outer axles of each bogie 
• 21-pin DCC socket with easy access
• Separately fitted wire handrails and sandpipes
• Spoked wheels
• Etched grilles
• Sprung OLEO buffers
• Flush glazing
• NEM coupler pockets
• Lighting: As per 18000. Two warm white headlights at front (lower left and lower right) in direction of travel and one red tail light at rear (lower centre). Including function (DC and DCC) to switch off tail light when hauling a train. 
• Warm white Cab lights. Including function to switch on/off.
• Separate engine room lights

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

 

I'm having enough trouble justifying 18000 in Cornwall, let alone that!

 

But... Perhaps in my 'alternative universe' they could have been found work in Cornwall like the D60Xs...

  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

I'm having enough trouble justifying 18000 in Cornwall, let alone that!

 

But... Perhaps in my 'alternative universe' they could have been found work in Cornwall like the D60Xs...

Both did get to Plymouth.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

Not sure if they would have been allowed over the bridge though Kris. But then I run a King when nobody is looking! :) 

Axle loadings for both would have been less than that of a King. The lighter of the 2 had axle loadings on a par with a Castle class. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Whilst it's commendable that they are doing 18100 I can't help but feel as a commercial venture a decent class 31 would make a commissioner a lot more money

The later 31s don't look too bad but unrebuilt blue ones and green full yellow ends look awful without the centre band.

How low does this bit of fruit have to hang before it's picked?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, nathan70000 said:

Did 18100 actually work ordinary trains as an electric locomotive?? I've only ever seen a couple of photos of it in it's latter guise and it looked quite neglected.


Used on the Styal line to trial the 25Kv ac system preliminary to the complete electrification from Crewe to Manchester. For best photographic images on WR mainline duty see the work of GF Heiron

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Ian Hargrave said:


Used on the Styal line to trial the 25Kv ac system preliminary to the complete electrification from Crewe to Manchester. For best photographic images on WR mainline duty see the work of GF Heiron

 

Wasn't it a training loco? I was watching something on YouTube the other night and a clip of it moving .

Not sure if it ever worked a revenue earning service freight or passenger  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, 18000 was an A1A-A1A as built (latterly an A11-A1A when a traction motor burnt out and was never repaired).   The centre axle on each bogie had wheels of reduced diameter compared to the driving axles so Heljan have got it right.  18100 was a Co-Co.

Edited by MG 7305
clarity
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, Kris said:

Axle loadings for both would have been less than that of a King. The lighter of the 2 had axle loadings on a par with a Castle class. 

Yes - but assuming the loading was spread evenly the axle loading for 18100 was just over 21t 11cwt so only 19cwt less than a 'King' and 31cwt more than the heaviest axle loadings on a D6XX 'Warship.  

It probably all depended on the bridge curve but in any event the additional crew training costs would probably have made it a less than feasible proposition for a very limited return especially as the loc only ran in traffic for a year.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes - but assuming the loading was spread evenly the axle loading for 18100 was just over 21t 11cwt so only 19cwt less than a 'King' and 31cwt more than the heaviest axle loadings on a D6XX 'Warship.  

It probably all depended on the bridge curve but in any event the additional crew training costs would probably have made it a less than feasible proposition for a very limited return especially as the loc only ran in traffic for a year.

According to the minutes of a BR/Metro-Vick meeting at Swindon on 12/2/52 as quoted in Kevin Robertson's book, 18100's axle loading was not completely evenly spread (as you would expect - but what I didn't expect was the side-to-side difference across some of the axles, up to 12cwt on no 5).

 

It's not clear to me from the quoted text which axle is which, but the total weight with approximately 980 gal fuel and 600 gal water in the tanks, sand boxes almost filled and the boiler part filled, was 130t 2cwt. The heaviest axle load was 22t 0cwt (either nos 4 and 5 or nos 5 and 6, depending on how you read the information).

Edited by St Enodoc
Apologies to KR - Robertson not Robetson
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Saw them at GETS today, absolutely stunning. 18100 is a must to buy, I said I really enjoy these experimental ground breaking locos, so the chap I was talking to said, you will enjoy our next announcement then (not 18100)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Payment attempted, failed as usual as the account I have is for internet payments and I only keep £1 in it on a regular basis, unless I know that I'm going to be making a payment. Hopefully will get resolved by or on Monday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, MG 7305 said:

Just to be clear, 18000 was an A1A-A1A as built (latterly an A11-A1A when a traction motor burnt out and was never repaired).   The centre axle on each bogie had wheels of reduced diameter compared to the driving axles so Heljan have got it right.  18100 was a Co-Co.

 

Slightly OT but the "1"  in "A1A" means one unpowered axel, so strictly speaking after one traction motor was removed the designation could be A2-A1A

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 7013 said:

Saw them at GETS today, absolutely stunning. 18100 is a must to buy, I said I really enjoy these experimental ground breaking locos, so the chap I was talking to said, you will enjoy our next announcement then (not 18100)!

Not 18100? How intriguing! The Class 89 has already been announced and neither the 74 nor the 88s were one offs. 10800 and the electric 70s spring to mind and are from the same early period. 10800 would be similar to the Classes 15 and 16 already produced by Heljan, not that that would make its production any easier. Besides, I think there has been more interest in the 70s. Bearing in mind that 18100 will be produced in different versions and the 70s appeared in different versions, they are what I would put a small bet on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, No Decorum said:

Not 18100? How intriguing! The Class 89 has already been announced and neither the 74 nor the 88s were one offs. 10800 and the electric 70s spring to mind and are from the same early period. 10800 would be similar to the Classes 15 and 16 already produced by Heljan, not that that would make its production any easier. Besides, I think there has been more interest in the 70s. Bearing in mind that 18100 will be produced in different versions and the 70s appeared in different versions, they are what I would put a small bet on. 

 

11001 anyone?

 

CJI.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

11001 anyone?

 

CJI.

Surely a very strong possibility must surely be the ex NER ES1 (latterly 26500 and 26501) very delectable looking machines and there is one sitting in NRM hands so nicely accessible and fitting the Rails/Locomotion tie-up.   And (worryingly?) I am of sufficiently mature years to have actually seen 26500 doing the job the NER built it to do at the Manors end of the branch.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...