|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Heaven: The SoF Railway Enthusiasts' Thread
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
I am well aware of the European attachment to the manual gearbox. I have a six-speed manual transmission in my car, something that is great fun on a mountain road, less fun in rush-hour freeway traffic.
Another observation about the Betjeman film. The freight cars (goods wagons?) looked, to my American eyes, incredibly old-fashioned and tiny, even by 1962 standards. Contemporary North American freight cars were steel and much larger in size. Carmakers were beginning to specialize with TOFC cars (truck/lorry trailers on flat cars), the predecessor to today's container cars. The BR cars, by contrast, looked like they could have carried freight in the time of Queen Victoria.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
In North America our idea of a "classic" freight car is a 40' steel boxcar painted Boxcar Red, which is rather brown. Steel sills, knuckle-coupler and airbrake fitted, it would appear to be years ahead of its British cousins. The only real change was the gradual shift to roller bearings and better trucks. Steel sills were required by 1928, but were common long before due to the heavy draft action of a typical freight car.
Here is a timeline of North American freight car improvements. "Banned from Interchange" is a very good encouragement to improve something, as non-interchangeable cars are nearly worthless.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I always preferred the 4-CIGs myself.
For lines which didn't have proper 4-Bigs ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(though a lot of them were Vep IIRC and ont he coastway they also used Hap)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
SPK: You are an invaluable resource for our British cousins. (As a Canadian, can you occasionally translate, as well?)
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Sorry, no. Railway practice in Canada was just like American practice, since it was the same sort of territory with the same operational problems of distance, grade, and need for heavy lifting to make money. We might call cabooses "Vans" and the CPR especially might have had a love of British-inspired paint schemes, but we operate North American style. You have to to get trains over Kicking Horse Pass. Besides, my experience of trains comes from living beside the Intercolonial Line in the early 1980's and reading TRAINS magazine.
Bree is the translator; he lived in the UK and knows more about it. When the UK shippies start talking about designers and valve gear my eyes glaze over. I have to read what UK shippies say and then translate it if I can get the gist of it.
Why they are so fixated on designers I will never know. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
I have a number of Thomas the Tank Engine Books from my childhood but I don't think that counts. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Since I live near Peterborough my first love is the CPR. My great-grandfather worked for them. Bree tends to be more CN-oriented.
Plus I like a lot of American roads like the Pennsy, NYC, Louisvile & Nashville and others.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The effect of a being a small Island. Single guys have much more influence. I would imagine that in the UK you can actually get to know the specific designer and recognise the influences. Indeed the designers probably knew each other: made partnerships, broke them and hotly debated the best designs in person. Somehow I suspect that the same hothouse effect was not present in the US and Canada. Plus designers went with railway companies who were genuinely competing with each other to carry the same people over the same journey.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[Snip] I've not thought about it before, but I'm not aware of any diesel that had a gear lever and crash change. Some other system would be essential to be able to couple units in multiple.
...
Just for the record, small diesel locomotives were actually built with stick shift and a clutch, but they tended not to be too popular with their crews.
quote:
0-6-0 diesel. Builder: John Fowler & Co (Leeds) Ltd.
...
W&L No 9 had a McLaren type M4 four-cylinder engine developing 100bhp at 1100rpm. A heavy-duty dry plate clutch transmitted the drive to an integral 4-speed and directional gearbox. The jackshaft drove the middle pair of wheels by a lengthy connecting rod. Unfortunately, the rather inflexible engine, manual clutch and gearbox made the locomotive unsuitable for passenger operation over the severe grades. On 18th March 1972, it moved to the railway at Whipsnade Zoo.
Remarks extracted from "The Welshpool & Llanfair" by Ralph I Cartwright.
From memory, it seems to have been the case that purely mechanical transmission was very unusual over 700bhp or thereabouts, confining it to shunting types. The only serious exception to this was the Fell engine (BR No 10100), rated at a theoretical 2000bhp, but even this used fluid couplings as an integral part of the transmission. It was a curious design, using a total of 6 engines (4 @ 500bhp that actually propelled the contraption and 2 @ 150bhp that drove superchargers). The transmission comprised a series of differentials (3 in total) which allowed any of the 4 engines to take the entire load, or to share it with any, or all, of the other engines. The locomotive was started away from rest on just 1 engine, the others being cut into circuit as speed rose. The idea of using separate engines to drive the pressure chargers was that maximum boost pressure was available at rest, whilst boost was cut to zero at maximum speed. The attraction seems to have been high transmission efficiency, but the complexity certainly did little to endear it to BR management, and a fire whilst standing at Manchester Central was terminal.
Pity really, it sounds like a fascinating experiment.
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Yes, JJ, I am astounded by the breadth and depth of the knowledge of the British posters on British lines and locomotives. North American practice was much more standardized from the start. Beginning in the 1850s, for example, most locomotives were wood-burning 4-4-0s, even if the gauge varied between lines. There were only three major steam locomotive makers in the US after 1900 (Baldwin, ALCO and Lima) and only two major diesel manufacturers after the 1950s (GM and GE). Things have gotten somewhat more interesting lately, and I know that the Canadians have their own history (which SPK and Bree will, with great completeness, fill in).
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
That would be correct. I grew up in the south side of Winnipeg, about a mile from the Fort Rouge CN yards. CP was completely across the city, and might as well have been in another province for all I saw of it until I had my driver's license. The bus transfer point (local bus to electric trolley buses - how modern can you get?) - was directly across from the huge icehouse (for refrigerator cars, as well as ice for air-conditioning), so I got to watch a lot of yard movement.
And I was at the station and then the roundhouse for the "last run" of CN U1d 4-8-2 #6043, closing off steam passenger service in 1960.
And now I live in a CP-less province, thanks to the Irvings and the Seaway. Reading the old lists of trains leaving Saint John for international service is awe-inspiring but, alas, theoretical.
Unfortunately, I don't remember much of the GN and NP steam services to Wpg., but the first-generation diesels were pretty impressive, esp. the GN dark-green-and-orange E-units.
My first cab ride was actually on a GN GP7.
A year at school in England in 1956-7, when I was 12 (prime train-spotting age!) gave me a taste for the "other" (if that's not too suggestive!) and subsequent trips over kept that taste alive.
Oddly enough, most of the passenger trains through Moncton now use surplus NightStar equipment, which looks pretty small behind paired F40s. But it does make my recent-immigrant British neighbour quite nostalgic, even though he isn't a train buff.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
I guess I stand to be corrected on this one, but I suspect that, British operations being on so much smaller a scale that their North American equivalents, there is more of a feeling of identification with specific figures. Design departments were fairly small; they had to be ~ the Railway companies were not big enough to employ large departments that did not add anything directly to the bottom line.
Add to that the fact that the pre-grouping companies were apt to fight like cats in a sack and you have wonderful grounds for partisanship. My knowledge of such things is hazy, being more of a GWR specialist, but I believe that the South Eastern Railway and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway competed so vehemently that they essentially drove each other into bankruptcy. The only answer was amalgamation, leading to the formation of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway company (an unwieldy name if ever there was one!), wherein the fighting could continue without quite such drastic effects upon the finances.
Even the smaller operations in this country seem to have been keen to design their own engines, rather than buying 'off the shelf' from such builders as Vulcan Foundry, Robert Stephenson, Bagnall, Beyer Peacock and Peckett (and those are just the ones I can think of right off, they were not the only ones by a long shot ~ Manning Wardle comes to mind). Quite why this should have been the case I really do not know ~ perhaps it was a prestige thing? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
I don't want to leave the impression that there were no significant "homebuild" steam and electric locomotives (not diesel) on North American roads. The Pennsylvania Railroad, for example, had huge shops in Altoona that turned out many of their most famous classes, including the K-4 and the GG-1. The Pennsy was probably the biggest locomotive builder among the Class I railroads, though other roads also built their own.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The CPR built a lot of locomotives, mostly at the Angus shops in Montreal, at the time of the great expansion in the Edwardian era. That ceased during WW1, when the shops went over to producing military supplies, and, after that, CP bought from the two major builders in Canada.
But always to its own mildly idiosyncratic designs - Cartazzi rear axles rather than trailing trucks for its 2-wheelers, for instance, or British-influenced ideas about sheet metal work. And only 6-driver for passenger work, please - none of those 8-driver things you see on That Other Railway.
The predecessors of CN usually bought from the builders, using designs that were (very tidy) versions of US practise.
CN continued this, only building a few special designs, like the 3800 Mikados (only 5 of them!), but they did do a bunch of 2-8-0s and a few 0-8-0s as early Depession-era makeworks, using spare parts from the common designs they were running anyway. CN had the problem of far too much track with light rail - the whole main line west across Ontario was on 85-lb rail until the diesel era, IIRC, so they had to use fairly light, by US standards, 8-driver locos in very large quantities, because there was so much distance to cover. It was only after the Northerns were built that running through several divisions became common.
But basically, the locos came from Montreal or Kingston.
As soon as diesels came in, it was obvious that all the railroads could use the same designs. Electromotive (a.k.a. General Motors) pushed that issue by good pricing for quantity, and took the market for a generation.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
On designers, one difference between UK and transatlantic practice is that UK railways largely designed and built their own engines. The commercial builders largely only supplied off the shelf engines to the colonial market. Even if they hired the commercial builders to build engines for them, by the C20 the commercial builders usually built to the company's design not their own. So there were far more different designs and the designer's role was much more significant.
There was more off the shelf sale of engines in the C19. Quite late on though, the Maryport and Carlisle (a small railway) did ask the Yorkshire Engine Co to provide engines 'like the ones you built for the Hull and Barnsley (another small railway) but with domed boilers'.
There was a legal bar, which derives from an oddity of English and Scottish company law, on railway companies building engines commercially for each other. The only real exceptions were when one of the participants supplied engines for a railway it had a joint share in.
On short four wheeled wagons, these were the standard dimensions. Sidings, shunting yards, loads etc were all designed to fit them. These are the culprits that didn't usually have piped brakes.
In BR days particularly, some of them were made of metal in stead of wood, but they were still the same size.
Changing the subject again, I knew the Fell engine quite well, as I saw it quite often as a child. It was an odd beast, with coupling rods with red balancing weights.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Thanks, HB, for filling in the Canadian side of the homebuild story. As someone who grew up in a Grand Trunk Western city, I certainly saw a lot of CN freight cars. I am a little too young to remember steam on the GT (except for one vague memory of a night freight on its way to Muskegon).
One of the best parts of the Grand Trunk was its car ferries, which operated between Grand Haven and then Muskegon and Milwaukee. The last classic car ferry (those built to a standard design by Manitowoc Shipbuilding in the 1920s), the S.S. City of Milwaukee, may be visited in Manistee, Michigan. Of course, the C&O operated even more ferries and in passenger service from their Ludington port across to Manitowoc, Kewanee and Milwaukee. The last C&O ferry, the S.S. Badger, still operates as a tourist ferry during summer months between Ludington and Manitowoc.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
If you're interested in Amtrak history, The Museum of Railway Timetables is fun. The name is a little misleading, because it's only Amtrak timetables, but it's interesting to see the changes over time.
I grew up on the Central Vermont, a CN owned line that runs from not-quite-Montreal to New London, CT, and I'm just old enough to remember steam.
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
According to Wikipedia, the Pennsylvania Railroad was the fourth largest producer of steam locomotives in the US, after Baldwin, ALCO and Lima. The PRR bought a significant number of locomotives from Baldwin (located in its home town of Philadelphia), some from Lima and only rarely from ALCO, which supplied the New York Central.
Unfortuately for the Pennsy, the practice of homebuilding hurt the road after World War II, due to the poor quality of their late duplex type passenger engines. Rival roads, most notably the New York Central, were able to use more modern and successful 4-8-4s. The Pennsylvania also foolishly bought Baldwin diesels, including a monstrous many wheeled type called the "Centipede," instead of EMD power. In those post-war years, the Pennsy started losing its reputation as "The Standard Railroad of the World." (How about that for American exceptionalism?)
Pennsy steam locos (along with only those of the Great Northern) universally employed Belpaire fireboxes. I understand that this type of firebox was common in Britain.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
As long as livestock moved on Canadian trains, it moved in 36-ft cars, since all the rail-supplied stockyards and slaughterhouses were built for that spacing of unloading ramps. The "Fowler" design of boxcar became the defacto standard in canada for this reason - the boxcars could be converted for stock purposes so easily.
And the cars were wood slatted bodies, although eventually the frames were steel to allow for the increasing weights of trains being pulled.
And that meant that all the divisional points had to have stock handling facilites, since there was a limit on how long a cow could stay in a railway car before being given a last breakfast and walkabout somewhere in the spruce forests of Ontario.
I always wondered at the quality of meat one could get from a cow that was rail-transported from some point west of Winnipeg all the way to Toronto. Even the few hundred miles from Saskatchewan in to Winnipeg was a looong way at 20 mph average (when moving at all!)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Livestock movements were very strictly regulated, actually. The US mandated that livestock be taken off the train and be fed, watered and rested at least every 28 hours. Canada would be similar. Livestock would then be held at the stockyard for a final rest and fattening before slaughter, in order to recover from the journey and improve the product.
LA Dave:
Yes, the Pennsy was the biggest homebuilder at Altoona, and it considered Baldwin to be its hometown supplier. The Norfolk & Western, which was controlled by the PRR through stock ownership also built many of its locos in its Raleigh shops. The New York Central likewise preferred ALCO because it was located on-line in Schenectady, NY.
The PRR's boast of being the "Standard Railroad" for our British friends information was really a hollow one, the Pennsy was the most idiosyncratic road in the US. It went in for electrification in a big way, didn't build many Superpower locos (Northerns, Hudsons and the like), and had its own signalling system. It was also chronically mismanaged after 1945 and was run into the ground before the debacle of the Penn Central merger in 1968.
Interestingly enough when Conrail, Penn Central's government bailout was broken up in 1998 between CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern, equipment to go to NS was labelled "Pennsylvania Lines" and equipment destined for CSX was labelled "New York Central Lines". NS got the Main Line through Pennsylvania and the Water Level Route west of Cleveland. CSX got the old NYC Water Level Route through New York State and the Pennsylvania, Fort Wayne & Chicago west of Cleveland. Strangely the Water Level Route was split in two at Cleveland. It only made sense due to existing line arrangements, though it did break up a main line that had been in place since 1860 or so, and under single corporate ownership since 1905.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It varied between railway whether they used Belpaire fireboxes or not. After 1923, they were normal on the LMS even though not all its constituents had used them, but not normal on the LNER, where only the Great Central, Great Eastern and sometimes the North British used them. The Great Western had adopted them even before the Churchward era. BR standards all had them. The Austerities did not, even though the Stanier 8Fs, on which they were based, did.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Yes, SPK, it is quite amazing that the PRR did not jump on the superpower bandwagon, and kept employing K4s as their only steam passenger locomotives long past the time when those locos could handle the traffic. The problem became acute during World War II, and the PRR had to double-head K4s to handle the longer wartime trains. At the point, the newest of these engines was over 15, and the oldest approached 30.
The Pennsy did build some "super-super power" engines in the duplex series beginning with the S1, which was the longest rigid-frame locomotive ever built. Unfortunately, it was a dud, as was the S2 (turbine) and the T1s. Great looking though. There was something to be said about hiring Raymond Loewy to design your locomotives.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Many American railroads had preferred locomotive suppliers. SPK noted that the New York Central liked ALCO power. So did the Union Pacific, which bought its Challengers and Big Boys from that maker. The C&O (and the roads it controlled, like the Nickle Plate and the Pere Marquette) was somewhat partial to Lima, which is why so many Berkshires (2-8-4) ended up on those lines, but also bought from Baldwin. Santa Fe was partial to Baldwin, while the Southern Pacific bought both from Baldwin (the great cab-forwards) and Lima (the wonderful GS series of Northerns).
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
As I am a bit of a Pennsy aficionado, the explanation always was that the NEC electrification plus the electrification through to Harrisburg on the Main Line made many locomotives redundant so the PRR's management simply moved them west, rather than buy new locomotives. There were plans afoot to electrify the Middle Division through to Pittsburgh including Horseshoe Curve, but the Pennsy's deteriorating finances after WWII prevented that.
The PRR had a passenger train deficit starting in 1946 and never made money on those trains again, and it was the largest passenger operator in the US. Then came the merger discussions with the NYC in 1958 (lunacy), chronic financial mismanagement as operating profits were diverted away from the railroad an into non-rail activities through a bevy of holding companies. Then the slow orders, the deteriorating track, the dirty locomotives and the sad look of the 1960's.
Then the disaster of the Penn Central merger in 1968 and its bankruptcy in 1970. As two swimmers do drown and choke their art, as the poet said.
See in North America boardroom antics are as important as anything.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
SPK: You made a good point about the Pennsy's shifting of its passenger steam fleet west. The electrification of the main line was very expensive, and there probably wasn't a lot of spare money to buy or develop new classes of steam. The S1 was an attempt to do that, but the PRR made the mistake of being convinced by Baldwin that a duplex loco would work. One wonders if the Pennsy would have been smarter simply to purchase superpower Northerns or Berkshires that could have been used on both freight and passenger runs. The Mountain type had a mixed traffic capability, but were mostly used for freights. Baldwin built the Texas type (which the Pennsy leased from the ATSF in the 1950s)
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Pennsy also built Texas-type locos, the J Class, during WWII. Since rationing by the War Production Board meant it couldn't design its own, it built 250 according to Chessie plans. These were the only home-built locos with radial-stay boilers on the PRR.
The S1 was a dud. Why anyone thought that an extremely heavy loco with a low driver/unpowered wheel ratio, and therefore such poor adhesion would be a good idea, I'll never know. The requirements for good adhesion were well-known. Plus a loco that could only be used the Fort Wayne Line west of Crestline was just idiotic.
Northerns would have been better, but they were considered unnecessary during the motive power surplus in the 1930's. Good Superpower designs or an even more courageous decision to just dieselize like the one the B&O took would be been better. Even then they would have been better off actually standardizing their diesel purchases, like the Alco-dominated New Haven.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Pond vocabulary differences, is a duplex an engine with two sets of unconnected drivers, with separate cylinders, but unlike a Garratt, all on one set of frames and not articulated? This was rare over here, so we haven't got a word for it, though the London and South Western at one time had what looked like 4-4-0s that were actually 4-2-2-0s with two separately driven single drivers. They were not much of a success. The Festiniog has some famous narrow gauge Fairlies, with two separate boilers as well, both pointing in opposite directions. These, though have articulation.
Over here, though, the only engines that had more than 5 driving axles were Garratts, one class of 2-6-0 - 0-6-2, and a single 2-8-0 - 0-8-2.
If I've got duplex right, what were the benefits of having two sets of drivers on one rigid frame? Is it the same as having some flangeless drivers to help get round curves. If so, I'd have though that was mechanically less complex than a second set of cylinders, with valve gear, and some way of keeping the two sets of wheels in phase with each other.
Does each set of drivers have two cylinders, or can they have three or four?
Also, is a 'Texas' shorthand for a wheel arrangement like Atlantic, Pacific or Prairie (the only names ever used much here) and if so which one?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Atlantic, Pacific or Prairie (the only names ever used much here)
'Mogul' gets used quite a bit over here as well.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Pond vocabulary differences, is a duplex an engine with two sets of unconnected drivers, with separate cylinders, but unlike a Garratt, all on one set of frames and not articulated? This was rare over here, so we haven't got a word for it, though the London and South Western at one time had what looked like 4-4-0s that were actually 4-2-2-0s with two separately driven single drivers. They were not much of a success. The Festiniog has some famous narrow gauge Fairlies, with two separate boilers as well, both pointing in opposite directions. These, though have articulation.
Over here, though, the only engines that had more than 5 driving axles were Garratts, one class of 2-6-0 - 0-6-2, and a single 2-8-0 - 0-8-2.
If I've got duplex right, what were the benefits of having two sets of drivers on one rigid frame? Is it the same as having some flangeless drivers to help get round curves. If so, I'd have though that was mechanically less complex than a second set of cylinders, with valve gear, and some way of keeping the two sets of wheels in phase with each other.
Does each set of drivers have two cylinders, or can they have three or four?
I believe the main benefit of duplex drive is to reduce "hammer-blow" (the vertical force of the driving wheels onto the track) by separating the drivers into two sets. Then of course, you need some cute engineering to prevent the problems* Webb had with his compounds!
*separate sets of driving wheels going in opposite directions! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
... I believe that the South Eastern Railway and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway competed so vehemently that they essentially drove each other into bankruptcy. The only answer was amalgamation, leading to the formation of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway company (an unwieldy name if ever there was one!), wherein the fighting could continue without quite such drastic effects upon the finances.
Not half as unwiledy as "The South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies Joint Management Committee" which was the full name! But it didn't help. Depsite having what was basically the main line from London to the rest of the world (and the oldest main line railway in the world) they never really made money and at Grouping they were not so much merged with as taken over by the much better-run London, Brighton and South Coast Railway and the much larger South Western Railway who pushed them into electrification which is why the lines are still there and still being used every day by millions of people including me.
Which is a point. These railway companies were not small affairs and their descendents are not small now. They concentrated on passengers, not goods, which leads to a completely different kind of railway and a completely different economics and a completely different kind of operations. Passengers and goods tend to drive each other off the rails, they really don't go well together. But not small. I wouldn't be surprised if the successors of the LBSCR and LCDR now carry more passengers a day than all the railways in the USA put together. Certainly stations like London Bridge, and Victoria are far busier than any in the USA (even Brighton Station at the far end of the line, probably handles more passengers a day than any station in the USA except Penn Station in New York)
They are also persistent. These railways were merged into Southern Railway at Grouping in 1920, then into British Rail at the 1948 Nationalisation even though they operated as separate reagions till the 1982 Sectorisation when they were supposedly broken up and reassembled as parts of Network South East. But when the privatisation came the infrastructure of the old Southern Region was still effectively isolated from the rest of the country and their vehicles and working practices still mostly home-grown and home-designed. All those CIGs and VEPs and HAPs and EPBs me and the Martian were talking about upthread. Slam-door EMUs operating at 750V DC-developed by and for the Southern Railway and Southern Region, and used mainly there (there are a few lines in the Liverpool areas and in Northe London built the same way)
So the privatisation (partly deliberately botched by the then government in a failed attempt to kill off as many passenger railways as possible) split the railway along its internal fault lines and the new Southern railway runs along pretty much exactly the same routes as the old LBSCR did, and its sister Southeastern franchise is more or less the old SECR.
[Deleted duplicate post]
[ 24. March 2010, 17:35: Message edited by: jedijudy ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Going back a couple of posts: The "Texas" wheel arrangement was 2-10-4, which meant a huge rigid wheelbase unless the drivers were tiny. The Santa Fe's Texas types had 6' 2" drivers, which was impossibly large for any other railroad, given more normal curvature of track. That size of locomotive represented about the biggest possible, which forced the development of the diesel just before the war.
Duplex drive weas an attempt to reduce connecting rod loading and hammer blow, but the only examples were way too late, and not suitable for much. The Pennsy's 4-4-4-4s had two sets of cylinders in the "normal position, while the B&O's one-off had the second set of cylinders back by the firebox, to try to reduuce the wheelbase. But all sets of drivers were too lightly loaded and the locos were very slippery starting. They could run like the wind, and they were OK for the track, but completely inflexible for changing conditions, and never really challenged the diesels.
New York Central's "Niagaras" (4-8-4) were able to show a minucule advantage over diesel in very specific circunstances, but the end of long-haul passneger business canned even that faint hope.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
A Texas-type is a 2-10-4. They are heavy haulers at speed since they were Superpower designs (superheated steam). They were generally used on heavy traffic divisions.
A Duplex Drive loco is indeed a rigid-frame loco with two separate drives. A Pennsy 4-4-4-4 was really a 4-8-4 Northern with the drivers split into two groups with double gear. The idea is to reduce hammer blow and carry a reduced reciprocating weight. The T1's problem was twofold. First it used poppet valves which couldn't take the extreme speeds these locos were capable of and this caused severe maintenance problems.
The second was the fact that these beasts were extremely powerful, free-steaming and very fast. Their throttles didn't behave normally either. It has been noted thus:
quote:
It should be noted that the retired enginemen who actually ran the T1s claim that they were not unduly slippery (even at speed), as most authors have claimed. Their secret to starting trains was to put down a little sand when stopping, a little when starting, and to use a light throttle up to 25 mph. Their secret to avoiding high-speed slipping was a longer cutoff coupled with partial throttle. The T-1s ran very well at speeds over 100 MPH.
If you are ever confused when we discuss North American locos, I heartily recommend www.steamlocomotive.com. It has notes on everything we could ever discuss. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jedijudy
Organist of the Jedi Temple
# 333
|
Posted
Zappa, your link doesn't seem to like me. Is this somewhat akin to what you were posting?
--------------------
Jasmine, little cat with a big heart.
Posts: 18017 | From: 'Twixt the 'Glades and the Gulf | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
For the assistance of non-North American railfans, these are the names of some of the more famous steam locomotive types. The first number refers to the total number of leading wheels, the second to drivers (more than one set indicates articulated) and the third to trailing wheels (those under the cab):
4-4-0: American
4-4-2: Atlantic
2-6-2: Prairie
4-6-2: Pacific
4-6-4: Hudson
2-8-0: Consolidation
2-8-2: Mikado
2-8-4: Berkshire
4-8-4: Northern
2-10-0: Decapod
2-10-2: Santa Fe
2-10-4: Texas
2-6-6-6: Allegheny (C&0)
4-6-6-4: Challenger (Union Pacific)
4-8-8-4: Big Boy (also Union Pacific)
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jedijudy
Organist of the Jedi Temple
# 333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the privatisation (partly deliberately botched by the then government in a failed attempt to kill off as many passenger railways as possible) split the railway along its internal fault lines and the new Southern railway runs along pretty much exactly the same routes as the old LBSCR did, and its sister Southeastern franchise is more or less the old SECR.
Ken, my poor tired brain read that as:
"...partly deliberately botched by the then government in a failed attempt to kill off as many passengers as possible..."
--------------------
Jasmine, little cat with a big heart.
Posts: 18017 | From: 'Twixt the 'Glades and the Gulf | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
Before SPK (who knows much more about locomotives than I do) points this out, the Allegheny type also was used by the Virginian railroad. Both C&O and Virginian used these monsters to haul 100-plus car coal trains through the Allegheny Mountains of the eastern United States.
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Challenger type was also used by many other roads than the Union Pacific, including the Delaware & Hudson in New York State.
In counterpoint to Bree, while the Texas was generally had the largest rigid wheelbase of any common type, the Challenger was the heaviest and largest commonly-used type, in that more than one road used it.
Also the Santa Fe didn't go into diesels because they couldn't go bigger than a Texas, they went in primarily because they had a lot of desert territory and wanted to get rid of their water problem. The Santa Fe was a prosperous road with a fondness for intelligent innovation, though they never owned many articulated locomotives.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LA Dave:
For the assistance of non-North American railfans, these are the names of some of the more famous steam locomotive types. The first number refers to the total number of leading wheels, the second to drivers (more than one set indicates articulated) and the third to trailing wheels (those under the cab):
4-4-0: American
4-4-2: Atlantic
2-6-2: Prairie
4-6-2: Pacific
4-6-4: Hudson
2-8-0: Consolidation
2-8-2: Mikado
2-8-4: Berkshire
4-8-4: Northern
2-10-0: Decapod
2-10-2: Santa Fe
2-10-4: Texas
2-6-6-6: Allegheny (C&0)
4-6-6-4: Challenger (Union Pacific)
4-8-8-4: Big Boy (also Union Pacific)
Also:
2-2-0: Planet
2-2-2: Single
2-6-0: Mogul
4-8-2: Mountain
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Also:
2-2-0: Planet
2-2-2: Single
2-6-0: Mogul
4-8-2: Mountain
No, a single (at least in Britain) can be any loco with a single pair of driving wheels. The Midland "Spinners", Dean and Stirling "singles" were all 4-2-2s.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Why does it seem that North American Railways usually come up with good paint schemes?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Enoch , is that Stroudley's Improved Engine Green please?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks, I thought so.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Does it strike anyone as odd that the LBSCR should name an engine after a politician?
I think we'd regard naming an engine Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher or Stephen Byers as divisive. One could imagine a passenger refusing to travel behind an engine named after somebody from a different party. There'd also be quite a lot of comment that a Train Operating Company should not be identifying itself publicly as Labour or Conservative. Yet the LBSCR's board was presumably saying, 'we are Liberals'.
There have been people who have had engines called after them, Andrew K McCosh, Princess Arthur of Connaught, Butler Henderson, Private E Sykes VC and Duchess of Devonshire (that isn't Debo by the way, but an earlier one) for example. But they aren't politicians or figures of controversy.
In the case of engines called after directors of the company, that no one had heard of, it was said that it was people who were named after the engines, rather than the more normal way round.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
