homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Heaven: The SoF Railway Enthusiasts' Thread (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  26  27  28 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Heaven: The SoF Railway Enthusiasts' Thread
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I must confess this thread has been an education, since I'm not terribly familiar with British locomotives.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308

 - Posted      Profile for Lord Pontivillian   Author's homepage   Email Lord Pontivillian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And, yes, when you add the weird conversion of the first Pacific, you get a humongous empty space that served no purpose other than to increase the wheelbase and weaken the frame.

Aah...that would also explain why they might slip on Portobello Sands!

--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.

Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Actually, I suspect that what I had in the photos as a child were Manors. [Hot and Hormonal]

Oops!

We'll forgive you, Trisagion. Unless the locomotive number is visible, identifying the class of the various 2-cylinder GWR 4-6-0's is not the simplest passtime ~ they were quite similar.

Horseman, am I right in assuming that you are speaking from a transatlantic perspective when you describe the LNER pacifics as having "small diameter" boilers? By British standards, Gresley's pacifics had some of the largest diameter boilers ever rolled (maximum diameter, above the firebox throatplate exceeded 6 feet in some cases), hence the tight fit within the loading gauge. I guess that, by American standards, this is pretty small, but for us it was large. I think you will find that Gresley boilers were probably only exceeded in diameter (in this country) by that fitted to the U1 Garratt built during his jurisdiction for the Worsborough incline.

I stand to be corrected on this one, but I thought Bullied was more influenced by Gresley than Churchward ~ wasn't he Gresley's personal assistant? Granted that Gresley was influenced by GWR practice where valve travel was concerned, I would have thought the GWR influence in SR practice was more via Maunsell.

SPK, glad to be of service. The same is true from this side of the pond ~ my ignorance of North American practice is legendary. [Big Grin]

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, I suspect that what I had in the photos as a child were Manors.

I think you're probably right as they were the only GWR 4-6-0s that were blue rather than red, or in the case of the Kings, double red. Perhaps someone who is even more disturbed than I am could tell us whether Manors were allowed on the northern section to Pwllheli or just the main line from Welshpool to Aber?


Reverting to Scots and smoke deflectors, the rebuilt ones certainly had taper boilers but the taper wasn't as pronounced as, say, a Castle. The Cities and Duchesses all end up with smoke deflectors, whereas the Princess Royals did not. Until well into the fifties, the ones that had been de-streamlined had a shaved off bit at the top of the smoke box where the streamlining had been removed. I don't know whether that had any effect on smoke drifting.

It was said to be more a symptom of when the engine wasn't working very hard. Hard work produced an emphatic draft that pushed the smoke and steam out of the chimney.


On big LNER locs, much though I'd like to have seen on in P2 form, reminiscences in the 1950s of those that had driven them suggest that although they could pull anything stuck behind them, they burnt coal at a phenomenal rate even with light loads. The load made no difference; the fire just burned. Also, the eight coupled wheels squealed badly going round some of the tortuous curves on the line to Aberdeen that they normally ran on. The number of different permutations of A2s suggests the blend may not have been quite right.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The GNR/LNER pitched their Pacific boilers much higher than any other railway. The boilers themselves were relatively small diameter, but the centreline was considerably higher than would be the case on any railway influenced by Churchward (Collett, Stanier, Bulleid...)

This forced the chimney to be very low above the smokebox.

And, yes, when you add the weird conversion of the first Pacific, you get a humongous empty space that served no purpose other than to increase the wheelbase and weaken the frame.

FWIW, the boiler diameter on the Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics was 6'5" at the firebox ring.

The frames on the Thompson Pacifics were adapted from those of the P2s of they were rebuilds. These were a only little longer than those of the Gresley A3s, so the empty space at the front of the frame was due to the outside cylinders being placed relative far back. This allowed for the recycling of the short drive rods from the P2s.

Thanks to the decision to abandon Gresley's conjugated valve motion, the Thompson Pacifics had divided drive. This meant that the inside cylinder drove the front axle and a its own valve gear. As Thompson liked to keep his driving rods of equal length this led to the inside cylinder being placed a log way forward. Visually this is unsatisfactory, but there was no evidence that it unduly weakened the frames.

Peppercorn's development of the A1 and A2 designs reverted to Gresley's positioning of the outside cylinders and made the outside drivng rods longer than that of the inside cylinder. This allowed him to keep the divided drive and avoided the long empty space at the front that was characteristic of the Thompson version.

The Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics had some labour saving devices such as a rocking (or self-cleaning) grate. Generally speaking they were a modernized and simplified version of the Gresley Pacifics.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm reasonably confident (as in, 80+ percent) that the Manors ran to Pwllheli ~ they were designed with former Cambrian routes in mind. I think the only Welsh mainline route from which they were barred was the old Mid Wales line through Llanidloes and Rhayader to Three Cocks Junction and Brecon, much of which was Yellow restriction.

I believe you are right about the P2's ~ their wheelbase was just that bit too long for the Aberdeen route and their coal consumption was legendary, though for all the wrong reasons. But I think it is fair to say that Thompson's rebuilding did nothing to solve the wheelbase problem and didn't do a great deal for adhesion either, hence Lord P's rather delphic remark above.

And, yes, I am almost certainly, as you say, 'disturbed'!

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I stand to be corrected on this one, but I thought Bullied was more influenced by Gresley than Churchward ~ wasn't he Gresley's personal assistant? Granted that Gresley was influenced by GWR practice where valve travel was concerned, I would have thought the GWR influence in SR practice was more via Maunsell.

I think you're right. Bulleid certainly came to the Southern from Doncaster.

The legend is that Gresley was persuaded in the 1920s to test his pacific in its original form against a much smaller Castle and was amazed that the Castle beat the pants off his lumbering monster. The secret was partly in the valve gear, partly in the higher calibre engineering - the first time the pacific went from Exeter to Plymouth the curves shimmed some of the wheels and bearings - and partly possibly in the boiler design.

The secret of long travel valve gear may have been passed on by Holcroft who at different times worked with Churchward, Gresley and Maunsell. They seem to have reached the LMS (or at least Derby rather than Crewe) by 1927, but were not always followed.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, yes, I am almost certainly, as you say, 'disturbed'!

This is a thread for the seriously disturbed. It should have a health warning 'if you are enjoying this - it's too late'.

--------------------
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      Profile for LA Dave         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, count me in.

To the person who asked about Amtrak between LA and Santa Barbara, there is a short run along the beach south of Santa Barbara, but the line moves inland just east of Ventura. If you go north of Santa Barbara, there is a great Pacific-side stretch until you move inland at San Luis Obispo.

Operating steam in the US is a difficult proposition because the Class I railroads still haul a lot of freight. There are some smaller branch lines that enable enthusiast runs. One of the best is headquartered in Owosso, Michigan, the Steam Railroading Institute. SRI operates a Berkshire (2-8-4) built for the Pere Marquette Railroad in 1941. Thus summer, SRI hosted a four-day steam festival that featured not only 1225 but also a sister Berkshire, 756 (built for the Nickel Plate in 1944) and, best of all, the incomparable 4449, a GS-4 Daylight in her original Southern Pacific colors. My family rode behind 4449 on an all-day excursion through the Michigan countryside and it was fantastic. This locomotive is actually owned by the City of Portland, Oregon and is operated by dedicated volunteers. Steam Railroading Institute

Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I'm reasonably confident (as in, 80+ percent) that the Manors ran to Pwllheli ~ they were designed with former Cambrian routes in mind. I think the only Welsh mainline route from which they were barred was the old Mid Wales line through Llanidloes and Rhayader to Three Cocks Junction and Brecon, much of which was Yellow restriction.

I believe you are right about the P2's ~ their wheelbase was just that bit too long for the Aberdeen route and their coal consumption was legendary, though for all the wrong reasons. But I think it is fair to say that Thompson's rebuilding did nothing to solve the wheelbase problem and didn't do a great deal for adhesion either, hence Lord P's rather delphic remark above.

The P2s were a mixed bag. The basic concept was a 2-8-2 version of the A3. On the whole they were moderately successful, but...

1. The pony truck perpetuated the K3 design which did not allow enough sideplay. This led to problems with the crank axle and some less than satisfactory riding on the tightly curved Aberdeen line. FWIW, the same type of truck, fitted to the "Green Arrows," was a contributory cause to a serious derailment. As the Green Arrows were otherwise a total success, and Gresley was still alive, the unsatisfactory pony truck was redesigned and the ride problem eliminated.

2. Gresley used first loco of the series - 2001 Cock o'the North - to test the Lentz rotary motion. Strangely 2001 had many of the same problems as the Caprotti fitted Duke of Gloucester twenty years later. The valve events were slightly "off" leading to excessive back pressure and high coal consumption. Earl Marishal, the second loco of the series, had conventional valve gear and was a lot lighter on coal.
3. The soft blast from the Kylchap cowls led to steam hanging around the boiler. This was eventually fixced by giving them A4 style wedge fronts.

O. S. Nock described the P2s as basically satisfactory locomotives, and discussed them at some length on British Steam Locomotive Performance. Apart from Cock o'the North in her original form their coal consumption was not that much higher than that of the Pacifics that replaced them. In the end one has to conclude that Thompson rebuilt them because their riding qualities were suspect.
Thompson was also an advocate of standardization and s were small class of specialized locomotives just did not fit in with his plans for the LNER locomotive fleet.

Thompson was quite determined to standardize the LNER locomotive fleet, but he was somewhat hampered by the fact WW2 was in full swing. He therefore adopted a policy of rebuilding small groups of locomotives as test beds for his new standard designs. The P2s succumbed to this policy as did 4470 "Great Northern." Thompson also had plans to rebuilt the other surviving Gresley A1s (A10s after 1944) to class A1/1, but in a reversion to pre-War policy under Peppercorn they were rebuilt as A3s instead.

FWIW, Thompson was not a member of the Gresley fan club, and believed that HNG had built too many small, specialized groups of locomotives. His contempt for his predecessor's policies made him unpopular with railway enthusiasts at the time, and I suspect still colours opinions when it comes to his designs for the LNER. That said, some of his designs did leave a bit to be desired in the areas of aesthetics and ride quality.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Memory insists that, in the comparative trials (in around 1925/1926) between the Gresley A1's and the Collett Castles, the significant points were:

1. Significantly lower coal consumption per unit of useful work done by the Castle ~ something like 2/3 the consumption of the A1
2. Considerably better performance at starting ~ the Castle could get a train out of Kings Cross much better than the A1

Gresley apparently analysed the results quite carefully and, as a result, made a number of modifications to the A1's, giving the A3's. Major changes were:

1. Valve gear modified to increase the travel.
2. Valve-head diameter increased.
3. Boiler pressure increased from 180 to 220 psi.

As I am sat at my desk in work I cannot quote the specific figures for the valve gear improvements, but the changes were considerable. One unfortunate consequence of increasing the valve travel was the problem subsequently noted as speed increased of centre valve over-travel. Because of the inevitable play in the conjugated motion, the inside cylinder valve tended to travel rather further than the outside valves, leading to the inside cylinder doing much more than its fair share of the work. This was a contributory factor in the failures of inside big ends (particularly on the A4's). Thompson's solution to the problem was to replace the conjugated drive with separate valve gear.

The better starting characteristics of the Castles were attributed to its wheel arrangement ~ the absence of a trailing truck gave better adhesion at starting than a Pacific could have. There was not a lot could usefully be done about this, as reverting to the 4-6-0 wheel arrangement would negate the biggest advantage the Pacific had ~ a large firebox above a deep ashpan.

There was another factor in play: the Castle had a maximum cut-off in full gear of 75%, the A1 only 65%. The reduced cut-off of the Pacific was the consequence of the over-travel problem (see above) ~ if the cut-off were allowed to exceed 65%, nasty noises could be heard coming from the front end which were the consequence of the inside valve striking the valve chest ends.

You would note that, after Nationalisation, Kenneth Cooke was transferred from Swindon to Doncaster. On his arrival in Doncaster, he noted that the LNER built its engines at tolerances and clearances at which Swindon scrapped theirs. One of his more momentous decisions was to replace the big end bearings on the A4's with one of Swindon pattern. This, whilst it upset the traditionalists and purists, largely cured the A4's hot big end problems.

Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829

 - Posted      Profile for Sandemaniac   Email Sandemaniac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a tangent, anyone else like Don Bilston? (it's a Myspace pace, but it's the most interesting one I found on a quick search).

AG

--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869

Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511

 - Posted      Profile for Alaric the Goth     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The 'Castle' that worked so well on the GN main line out of King's Cross, and it was in 1925 btw, was 4079 'Pendennis Castle'. It is now preserved and is under restoration to main line working order at the Great Western Society's Didcot home, having been successfully repatriated from the Hammersley Iron Railway in Australia(!) a few years ago.
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
On a tangent, anyone else like Don Bilston? (it's a Myspace pace, but it's the most interesting one I found on a quick search).

AG

An interesting find, Sandemaniac. I haven't come across him so far, but can I direct you to Dave Goulder ?

The reason I mention him is that I have an album of his which is exclusively his steam railway songs. He has an impecable pedigree as a writer of songs about steam railways, in that he was a steam fireman with BR based in the Nottingham area. He is also of interest to me as he came to our folk club in about 1988, so I heard him live in a proper pub atmosphere. Sadly the folk club folded in 1989 ~ can't have everything, I guess.

--------------------
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
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829

 - Posted      Profile for Sandemaniac   Email Sandemaniac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
An interesting find, Sandemaniac. I haven't come across him so far, but can I direct you to Dave Goulder ?



You most certainly can! From the few bits I've had a mo to listen to he sounds very similar in idea to DB (and I think the Knotweed might get a surprise when she looks at the friends and musicians on the Myspace paGe!

AG

--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869

Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659

 - Posted      Profile for chiltern_hundred   Author's homepage   Email chiltern_hundred   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A somewhat belated reply to PD, who wrote that:

quote:
The P2s were a mixed bag. The basic concept was a 2-8-2 version of the A3.
IIRC, it was the P1's - the first Mikados, used only on freight - that had an A3 boiler on top of a different chassis. The P2's seem to have been completely different beasties.
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511

 - Posted      Profile for Alaric the Goth     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
A somewhat belated reply to PD, who wrote that:

quote:
The P2s were a mixed bag. The basic concept was a 2-8-2 version of the A3.
IIRC, it was the P1's - the first Mikados, used only on freight - that had an A3 boiler on top of a different chassis. The P2's seem to have been completely different beasties.
Yes, there were two P1s, 2393 and 2394 IIRC, and they were indeed 2-8-2s with A3 boilers, and I think the same cylinders and cabs also. They were built to haul enormous coal trains on the GN main-line (Peterborough New England yard to London). Although capable of prodigious feats of haulage, they were only economical with loads so heavy that the train lengths could not be accommodated in the existing goods loops, giving them no advantage over 2-8-0s like the O2s, and explaining why they were scrapped in the mid 1940s.

The P2 boiler was a much larger affair than an A3 boiler. Its 6'2" wheels were of a size suitable for express passenger work.

--------------------
'Angels and demons dancing in my head,
Lunatics and monsters underneath my bed' ('Totem', Rush)

Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A slightly late answer to Darllenwr and others, re: the boiler of LNER Pacifics.

Looking over the various pictures I can find, I realise that the boilers were actually about the same size as those on Stanier's Pacifics. But Stanier's locos LOOKED much heavier, while the LNE ones looked very tall and spindly, with visually smaller boilers perched above fully-exposed wheels. I suppose this relates to the heavy running plate, deflectors and smokebox ring of the Staniers, compared to the openness of the A1s and A2s.

Minor question: why did the Princesses never have deflectors, while the Coronations all had them? Is it the effect of the double chimney?

Major question, tangenting off: why were the English so obsessed with inside cylinders? All 0-6-0s, including Bulleid's, almost all 0-8-0s and most shunting tanks. More puzzling, most 4-4-0s, which is a wheel placement that allows for the cylinders in a well-balanced location. Did the designers have total contempt for the maintenance people?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
A somewhat belated reply to PD, who wrote that:

quote:
The P2s were a mixed bag. The basic concept was a 2-8-2 version of the A3.
IIRC, it was the P1's - the first Mikados, used only on freight - that had an A3 boiler on top of a different chassis. The P2's seem to have been completely different beasties.
Funnily enough, that rather illustrates what Thompson hated about Gresley's locomotive policy. Gresley had a habit of building small classes of highly specialized locomotives. Part of this was due to the LNER being skint, and part of it was due to Gresley's desire try new ideas. It does not matter which it was, it was still a running shed foreman's nightmare.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Major question, tangenting off: why were the English so obsessed with inside cylinders? All 0-6-0s, including Bulleid's, almost all 0-8-0s and most shunting tanks. More puzzling, most 4-4-0s, which is a wheel placement that allows for the cylinders in a well-balanced location. Did the designers have total contempt for the maintenance people?

I think the answer to the second question was 'yes'. The same applied to those that designed Jaguars in the fifties.

But I think there was also the view that the drive should be onto axles that were supported at both ends by frames.

There's still a lot of people about even now who seem to be oblivious to what I'd regard as one of the most basic design principles - start by asking oneself, 'how will I repair this?' Anyone who says 'my machinery or software won't break down' is revealing themselves to be a fool.


Also, on an 0-6-0 or an 0-8-0, outside cylinders don't look very stable in front of driving axles with no leading axle. With inside cylinders they can be above the front driving axle - even though they're impossible to get at. I'm fairly sure the big North Eastern 0-8-0s did not have continuous brake fittings and so would have been restricted to slow mineral use. Industrial 0-6-0 tanks with outside cylinders used for passenger trains on preserved lines do seem prone to imparting a to and fro effect to the carriages behind them.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the objections to outside cylinders on 4-coupled engines (ie, with a short fixed wheelbase) was the way that the locomotive swayed around the vertical axis in response to the piston thrusts ~ the outside cylinders had a greater moment of inertia than their inside equivalent, with consequent rough riding.

It goes back to the earliest years of steam in this country: consider 'Rocket', probably the simplest chassis you could devise, 0-2-2. Outside cylinders (albeit in a rather curious location) and a classic rough rider. When Stephenson introduced his 'Planet' design, he put the cylinders inside the frames and close to the centre line, thus improving the ride, even though the engine still only had 2 axles. I think that many designers took the view that Stephenson knew best, and just followed the received wisdom in fitting inside cylinders, even though crank axles were known to be a weak point and fracture was far from unknown.

There was also the Victorian predisposition for hiding 'the works' from view as though they were somehow indecent.

It seems to me that American designers adopted leading trucks very early on in Railroad history ~ was that, as has been suggested, in deference to indifferent track quality? The presence of a leading truck tends to suppress the oscillations that British designers used inside cylinders to avoid. Because they had dealt with the oscillation problem, American designers decided that they didn't need the hassle of crank axles, so why use inside cylinders? Good thinking.

Saying all of that, it is hard to understand why Bullied used inside cylinders on his Q1's unless it was to reduce weight ~ it is possible that using the cylinder block to brace the frame meant that he could allocate more of his maximum weight elsewhere, specifically to the boiler. As his objective was to build the most powerful locomotive possible on a 6-wheel chassis, and the boiler is the key to steam locomotive power, one can understand a desire not to add any deadweight that was avoidable.

Don't know ...

--------------------
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
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Eek!]
.
.
.
.
.

Phew
.
.
.
.
.

[Snore]

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't think of an inside-cylinder loco built for North American service after about 1850. OTOH, almost any loco used outside the yard had a lead truck, so the oscillation and front-overhang problem wasn't there.

So why the obsession with 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 designs for road service? (Not just in England, but in places with poor track like the Khyber Pass, where i.-c. 0-6-0s were in use within the last generation)

Sorry, Zappa. How much chocolate do you need?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A slightly late answer to Darllenwr and others, re: the boiler of LNER Pacifics.

Looking over the various pictures I can find, I realise that the boilers were actually about the same size as those on Stanier's Pacifics. But Stanier's locos LOOKED much heavier, while the LNE ones looked very tall and spindly, with visually smaller boilers perched above fully-exposed wheels. I suppose this relates to the heavy running plate, deflectors and smokebox ring of the Staniers, compared to the openness of the A1s and A2s.

Minor question: why did the Princesses never have deflectors, while the Coronations all had them? Is it the effect of the double chimney?

Major question, tangenting off: why were the English so obsessed with inside cylinders? All 0-6-0s, including Bulleid's, almost all 0-8-0s and most shunting tanks. More puzzling, most 4-4-0s, which is a wheel placement that allows for the cylinders in a well-balanced location. Did the designers have total contempt for the maintenance people?

I am 99% sure the single blastpipe on the LMS Princess class was a factor in their not being fitted with smoke deflectors.

As for inside cylinders...

British locomotives, with the odd exception, had plate frames rather than bar frames. Plate frames are more flexible than the bar frames used in the USA, Germany, and elsewhere. If plate frames are not properly braced they are prone to fatigue cracks. The two main reasons why British designers favoured inside cylinders are...

1. Outside cylinders exacerate the problem of fatigue cracks in plate frames.
2. In short wheelbase locomotives - 4-4-0s and 0-6-0s - they result in a pronounced "waddle" which can become very dangerous at speed.

Churchward built some big outside cylinder 4-4-0s - the County Class - for the GW/LNW joint line south of Shrewsbury. Compared to his 4-6-0s, the Counties were notoriously bad riders. Furthermore, by the 1930s they were suffering from frame cracks which led to their withdrawal c.1935.

FWIW, the GWR was the first exxtensive UK user of locomotives with two large outside cylinders for express work when the Saints, appeared in 1902. Most other railways still favoured inside cylinders for express work, and that was to continue until 4-4-2 and 4-6-0 locomotives took over the bulk of express passenger work in the 1920s. Railways with a small engine policy - e.g. The Midland - ended up with very few outside cylinder engines. The only large class of Midland locomotives I can think of with outside cylinders were the compounds, and they had three anyway, thus eliminating the stress fracture and waddle problems.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I can't think of an inside-cylinder loco built for North American service after about 1850. OTOH, almost any loco used outside the yard had a lead truck, so the oscillation and front-overhang problem wasn't there.

So why the obsession with 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 designs for road service? (Not just in England, but in places with poor track like the Khyber Pass, where i.-c. 0-6-0s were in use within the last generation)

Sorry, Zappa. How much chocolate do you need?

0-6-0s were cheap to build and very robust. Also freight train speeds were low - around 20mph for loose couple freight trains (i.e. those without continuous brakes). In short, there was no incentive other than increasing tonnages to move on to something more complicated for freight.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that you would find that another reason for building inside cylinder 0-6-0's was that no weight was wasted on non-driving axles ~ a concept very dear to Bullied's heart, in particular.

The idea of having all axles driven was one of the factors that drove the building of his 'Leader' class. I suppose you could say that the 'Leaders' were typical Bullied locos ~ some very good ideas terminally overshadowed by a number of glaring flaws. One, in particular, has to be the use of sleeve valves. OK, so I can understand why he used them; it enabled him to fit three inside cylinders onto the power bogie and still be able to fit a fully enclosed body above the bogie and stay within the loading gauge. Pity it didn't work ...

Probably another driving factor relating to the use of inside cylinders has been mentioned already ~ reduced overhang. Inside cylinders can be mounted above the front driving axle, outisde cylinders have to go ahead of it. This is not a problem if you have a pony truck or similar, but otherwise leads to a substantial overhang. This, in turn, leads to rough riding. Consider the GWR 15xx class, the only 0-6-0 PT class built with outside cylinders. Notoriously rough riding at any speed.

Of course, this does not explain the use of inside cylinders on an 0-8-0 chassis.

And, thanks, PD, for the observations about plate frame cracking ~ I had overlooked that point. Though one should also bear in mind the use (in Victorian times) of 'Sandwich Frames' which were essentially two layers of iron plate with timber in between. The idea was that the extra flexibility would reduce the probability of cracking. From the fact that sandwich frames were not used in the 20th Century, one may infer that the idea was not that brilliant.

Of course, at the opposite extreme were the monolithic cast steel frames used by the later Beyer Garratts.

--------------------
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
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The 0-8-0 classes that I can think of were all built as coal haulers, usually in succession to a series of big 0-6-0s. They were the logical next step.

With loose coupled freight trains adhesion weight is a factor both for getting the thing moving, and for braking. Basically all you had to stop with was the weight of the loco brakes and a twenty ton brake van on the rear. Rapid braking of any description resulted in a mess to clean up. Rapid acceleration before all the couplings were tight had the same result too.

The loose coupled freight train also influenced Western Regons decision to build some of its diesel hydraulics with a standard underframe negating the weight savings possible by using hydraulic in place of electric transmission.

Leading pony trucks for freight locomotives were only customary in the UK once fitted (with continuous brakes) freights became heavy enough to outgrow the 0-6-0 concept - usually in the Edwardian era. The Jones Goods 4-6-0 on the Highland Railway, the 28XX and the "Aberdare" 2-6-0 on the GWR, and the Fish Engine and Black Pig 4-6-0s on the GCR were all early examples of British locomotives with pony trucks or leading bogies for fast freight work. Unlike loose couple freights, the fitted freights were schedule for speeds of up to 50mph making a leading truck a neccessity on the larger locomotive. After 1914 most fitted freight work in Britain eventually ended up in the hands of 2-6-0, 4-6-0, and 2-8-0 locomotives with 5'3" or 5'8" driving wheels. The slower loose couple freights remained in the hands of 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 locomotives, though increasing tonnages eventually made small wheeled 2-8-0s very popular for the heaviest freights. The GWR, the GCR, and the LMS all developed very successful 2-8-0s for moving 1000 ton loose coupled freights. The GCR examples bought by the GWR were described as "the one hundred pound locomotive" because they were so cheap to maintain.

One note on frames. Although plate frames suffer from fatigue tracks, bar frame also have their faults. Bar frames tend to distort "out of square" unless very firmly braced, and need careful maintenance to avoid rough riding. The limited numbers of bar framed locomotives imported into the UK during the 1890s all had fairly short lives dues to rough riding, non-standard design, and their need for relative frequent maintenance. The American solution for frequent maintenance was to make everything easily accessible so that repairs could be make easily, quickly, and cheaply. This is very sensible given the nature of the American railway system, and the relatively limited supply of skilled labour.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:

It seems to me that American designers adopted leading trucks very early on in Railroad history ~ was that, as has been suggested, in deference to indifferent track quality? The presence of a leading truck tends to suppress the oscillations that British designers used inside cylinders to avoid. Because they had dealt with the oscillation problem, American designers decided that they didn't need the hassle of crank axles, so why use inside cylinders? Good thinking

In a word, yes.

There were a few really experimental early units, the Baltimore & Ohio's first loco come to mind, but by 1850 the 4-4-0 American was the standard locomotive in North America. The first railroads in the U.S. Northeast which later became the New York Central, Pennsylvania Railroad and Baltimore & Ohio each replaced a parallel canal, and their traffic patterns and building histories look very British. Most other US and almost all the Canadian railroads, especially the Western ones were built with Land Grants. Track was built very quickly to meet a construction deadline to enable the railway to take possession of the land grants given to it in its charter by the government. The 4-4-0 with a leading truck allowed a locomotive to run over often poor track and/or tight curves at speed.

Many early roads were speculation when they started.

As Horseman Bree said, any road locomotive in North American had a least a 2-wheel leading truck.

In contrast to British practice, North American railroads tended to focus on better counterbalancing to minimize dynamic augment. The Norfolk & Western 4-8-4 J class were so perfectly counterbalanced that there is record of a J class being run at 79 mph (track speed) using only one side powered, the running gear on the other side having been wrecked in an accident. This was reported in TRAINS magazine but I don't have the issue to hand right now.

Another reason that leading trucks were used is that after 1870 all freight cars were fitted with Westinghouse air brakes and Janney knuckle couplers. The absolute economic imperative for car interchange means that all freight cars with some very, very rare exceptions meet common standards published by the Association of American Railroads. To North American eyes, the British habit of running unfitted trains with minimal braking behind underpowered locomotives is sheer madness.

In North America we load 'em up or run 'em fast, or both.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One advantage to the American method of operation is that you did not have to cope with the loose coupled freight train. The blasted things were a relic of the early days when colleries provided their wagons and built them cheap. Although there were improvements over the years - like springs, sprung buffers, decent handbrakes - the average coal wagon was primitive. It was a four wheeler with a ten foot wheelbase holding 10 or 12 tons. Later, in the 1950s, the British Rail standard coal wagon was either a ten foot wheelbase wagon that held 16T, or a fifteen foot wheelbase wagon holding 24T. I do not recall either as having continuous brakes.

Various railways tried to introduce 24T, 30T and 40T bogie wagons - notably the GCR and the GWR. However, the colleries were set up for the 10 foot wheelbase ten ton wagon, so the new larger wagons were unpopular and ended up used either for locomotive coal, or for ballast. The mines also owned much of the wagon fleet which doubtless doubled their resistance to any attempt to introduce large bogie wagons for coal. With a major sector of the freight market resisting more modern equipment, the railways tended to tinker around with the basic 10 ton on four wheels format for the rest of the goods fleet.

As a kid in the early seventies I remember lines of loose coupled 16 ton coal wagons clanking along behind aging diesels delivering domestic coal. When British Rail decided to modernize the coal distribution network in the early 1980s very few coal merchants could afford to invest in the equipment necessary to handle the new 40T wagons. The result was that house coal went from rail to road transport.

Since the 1970s, all surviving freight traffic has migrated to either 228,000lb bogie wagons, or long wheelbase four wheelers of up to 114,000lbs. Air brakes have been standard since the 1970s. Even today freights have to be less than 1600 feet long, so as not to foul up the signalling system. This, together with the need to provide adequate power to keep out of the way of passenger trains keeps the maximum size of UK freight trains to between 2000 and 2500 tonnes. The Foster Yeoman aggregate trains can reach 2750 tonnes, but that is over the relatively level GWR main line from Taunton to Paddington. At present the heaviest oil trains out of Immingham are 22 TEAs, roughly 2255 tonnes behind a class 66, compared with 1989 when the largest trains were 12 TEAs, 1230 tonnes either single headed with a class 37 or 56, or double headed by a pair of 31s.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PD, the great British loose-coupled freight train has a great deal to answer for, but the design of the WR D600 class, although in deference to loose-coupled freight, was no part of the WR Management plan ~ it was forced upon them by the British Transport Commission who held the purse strings.

The intention of WR management was to eliminate the loose-coupled, unbraked, freight train, which would make a heavy locomotive (purely for braking purposes) unnecessary. Hence their call for a 2200 hp locomotive weighing 80 tons (the D800 class). What they got was a 2000 hp locomotive weighing 117 tons (the D600's). This was because the BTC had not the foresight to accept that the unbraked freight was an annachronism and was designing 2000 hp diesel-electric locomotives weighing 133 tons (the D1's). The BTC's view was (approximately) "what's good enough for us is good enough for you", which led to the insistence upon a heavy-weight locomotive built on a strength underframe; the D600's. By contrast, the D800's used stressed-skin construction (as did the D1000's) to minimise weight.

What is hard to comprehend is why neither management had the foresight to abandon vacuum brakes in favour of air. Granted the Mark 1 carriage fleet argued in favour of vacuum brakes, but the Mark 2's, with air brakes, were just around the corner. The fact that the WR diesel-hydraulics presented major problems when conversion to air braking was required was a significant factor in their early demise.

That and the fact that BTC had never liked them in the first place.

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There were very few benefits from running loose coupled goods trains, but there was one.

This is that a small engine with sufficient power to keep one trundling along at 15 mph could get one into motion. The slack in the couplings meant that on starting the engine only had to overcome the inertia in the first five or so trucks. It then picked up the weight of the rest of the train once it was already moving. When stopping, it was important to make sure the trucks buffered up to each other so that all the couplings were hanging slack.

That is more of a problem on an incline where unless the guard got his braking right, on stopping the trucks would run back so that the couplings were stretched.

One thing which will puzzle non-UK enthusiasts is that there was a middle range of freights than ran partially fitted, with a fitted head of say 10 wagons, and the rest loose.

Incidentally, I've long suspected that the Jones Goods was influenced by the sort of thing the Scottish manufacturers were by then building for the colonial market.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
PD, the great British loose-coupled freight train has a great deal to answer for, but the design of the WR D600 class, although in deference to loose-coupled freight, was no part of the WR Management plan ~ it was forced upon them by the British Transport Commission who held the purse strings.

The intention of WR management was to eliminate the loose-coupled, unbraked, freight train, which would make a heavy locomotive (purely for braking purposes) unnecessary. Hence their call for a 2200 hp locomotive weighing 80 tons (the D800 class). What they got was a 2000 hp locomotive weighing 117 tons (the D600's). This was because the BTC had not the foresight to accept that the unbraked freight was an annachronism and was designing 2000 hp diesel-electric locomotives weighing 133 tons (the D1's). The BTC's view was (approximately) "what's good enough for us is good enough for you", which led to the insistence upon a heavy-weight locomotive built on a strength underframe; the D600's. By contrast, the D800's used stressed-skin construction (as did the D1000's) to minimise weight.

What is hard to comprehend is why neither management had the foresight to abandon vacuum brakes in favour of air. Granted the Mark 1 carriage fleet argued in favour of vacuum brakes, but the Mark 2's, with air brakes, were just around the corner. The fact that the WR diesel-hydraulics presented major problems when conversion to air braking was required was a significant factor in their early demise.

That and the fact that BTC had never liked them in the first place.

It is a comfort to know that the D600s were the BTC's fault, because otherwise the WR Diesel Hydraulics were reasonably successful - apart, that is, from the "half a D600" Bo-Bos built by NBL for local passenger and freight work.

I think British Rail's XP64 prototype was the first time they fitted a whole passenger train with air brakes. IIRC some early batches of the Mk2 fleet were ordered with either vacuum brakes or dual brake. The switch to air only came with Mk2b/c around 1966.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PD, I don't know whether it is your 'bag' or not, but if you are interested in the WR diesel-hydraulics, "The Western's Hydraulics" by J.K.Lewis (ISBN 1-901945-54-5) makes interesting reading. Originally published in 1977, it is a reasonably thorough overview of WR traction policy in the late 1950's, the interaction with BTC (who were, it seems, interested in crushing the enterprise being shown by WR management) and the consequences.

One can say with reasonable assurance that the D600's and D6300's were all killed by the same problem: the MAN L12V18/21S engine. Reliability was always an issue.

Saying that, the Maybach-engined D1000's, D800's and D7000's didn't always fare much better, though the problem in their cases would seem to have had more to do with inadequate maintenance rather than intrinsic shortcomings to the engines themselves. It seems to me that the maintenance staff couldn't quite get their heads around the fact that they were running high-stress engines that needed just that little bit more attention than the big Sulzer engines in the D1's. They could have learned a few lessons from the guys who maintained the Deltics.

And all this from an avowed steam man. [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
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
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

Sorry, Zappa. How much chocolate do you need?

[Killing me]
Actually, to be honest, I'm remembering my late father - he died in 1974! - who lived for rail, resented electrics and diesels but still lived for rail. He was a Signal and Telecommunications engineer in Kenya and Ghana ... his eyes would light up when he saw a steam engine ... I was still a child, though when he died, and didn't grab the bug.

I'm sure there will be steam trains in heaven.* My own faint memories of locos pulling into some London station were memories of awe.

*And a celestial de-poluting device!

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

I'm sure there will be steam trains in heaven.

Will be? Where do you think most of them are already?

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, some designs were clearly unheavenly, especially when one considers the language used by the maintenance guys to describe them.

--------------------
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      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There were very few benefits from running loose coupled goods trains, but there was one.

This is that a small engine with sufficient power to keep one trundling along at 15 mph could get one into motion. The slack in the couplings meant that on starting the engine only had to overcome the inertia in the first five or so trucks. It then picked up the weight of the rest of the train once it was already moving. When stopping, it was important to make sure the trucks buffered up to each other so that all the couplings were hanging slack.

That is more of a problem on an incline where unless the guard got his braking right, on stopping the trucks would run back so that the couplings were stretched.

One thing which will puzzle non-UK enthusiasts is that there was a middle range of freights than ran partially fitted, with a fitted head of say 10 wagons, and the rest loose.

Incidentally, I've long suspected that the Jones Goods was influenced by the sort of thing the Scottish manufacturers were by then building for the colonial market.

Sorry, I don't see the benefit.

North American trains all have knuckle couplers with draft gear. The couplers provide a foot or so of slack, which can add up to 30% of the train length. This is how we manage to run such massive freight trains.

It's considered poor train handling to take up slack by braking the locomotive and not the train. Stretching the slack on startup generates an increasing force along the length of the train, and by the time the caboose started (when we still had cabooses) the conductor and trainmen could get knocked to the floor. Letting the Independent Brake take care of the train alone would make things very rough in the caboose. Proper handling is to brake the train using the train air brakes and take up slack on startup.

Passenger trains have reduced slack couplers for easier rides.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
PD, I don't know whether it is your 'bag' or not, but if you are interested in the WR diesel-hydraulics, "The Western's Hydraulics" by J.K.Lewis (ISBN 1-901945-54-5) makes interesting reading. Originally published in 1977, it is a reasonably thorough overview of WR traction policy in the late 1950's, the interaction with BTC (who were, it seems, interested in crushing the enterprise being shown by WR management) and the consequences.

One can say with reasonable assurance that the D600's and D6300's were all killed by the same problem: the MAN L12V18/21S engine. Reliability was always an issue.

Saying that, the Maybach-engined D1000's, D800's and D7000's didn't always fare much better, though the problem in their cases would seem to have had more to do with inadequate maintenance rather than intrinsic shortcomings to the engines themselves. It seems to me that the maintenance staff couldn't quite get their heads around the fact that they were running high-stress engines that needed just that little bit more attention than the big Sulzer engines in the D1's. They could have learned a few lessons from the guys who maintained the Deltics.

And all this from an avowed steam man. [Hot and Hormonal]

It is interesting to realize know that the WR got it right fairly early on with diesels. The horsepower outputs of the 1700hp "Hymeks", 2200hp "Warships" and 2700hp "Westerns" were more in line with the reality of rail operation once diesel replaced steam. The rest of BR piddled around with 1200hp and 2000hp units until the 37s and the 47s arrived in bulk in the late 60s!

The Irish also had an interesting time with modernisation. It is a little known fact that Bulleid planned the dieselisation of the CIE as their CME from 1950-58. Of course, he did tinker about with a peat burning version of Leader, but he also put together a modernization plan that replaced CIE patch work quilt of small classes of locomotives with three standard types of mainline locomotives and a railcar fleet.

The diesel railcars built with BUT and ACE equipment for secondary passenger services in the mid-1950s. Had two sets of gear combinations - one for suburban and local work that limited them to 45mph, and a second for express passener work that allowed them to run at up to 85mph.

The also commissioned three classes of mainline diesel.

Sixty "A" Class locomtives of 1200hp for express passenger and freight trains. These materialized from MetroVick as Co-Cos with a 1200hp Crossley engine.

The twelve slightly smaller Class Bs were kind of accidental, but were intended for less demanding mainline passenger and freight duties. These were a follow-on from two 915hp, Sulzer engined and Inchicore built machines that CIE produced c. 1950. CIE had bought additional Sulzer engines for an express locomotive project which had been abandoned. The redundant prime-movers were used as the basis of the 12 960hp A1A-A1As built by BRC&W. They had a remarkable mechanical similarity to the 1160hp Type 2s BRC&W built for British Railways.

Lastly there was the 34 locomotives of the C Class which were intended for branch line mixed trains and local freights. They arrived in the form of a 550hp Bo-Bo built by Metro-Vick which also bessed with Crossley engines.

Bullied avoided one bugbear of early British diesels by refusing to fit any of his with train heating boilers. The steam generators were consigned to a compartment in the four wheel luggage vans that accompanied the Park Royal stock built in the early 1950s. Thus they generators could not have their usual malign effect of locomotive availability.

After Bulleid retired things went badly pear-shaped. The "A" Class and the "C" Class were electrically sound, but the Crossley main engines were a disaster. Once they got some mileage on them they suffered a lot of fractures ranging from fuel and coolant pipes through to crank-cases. Tomake matters worse, the fleet of 600hp 0-6-0 transfer and shunting engines that were designed to replace steam on freight and transfer work turned out to be unsuitable for speeds over 25mph, even though they had been designed for 60mph. This left steam in charge of local freight for another few years.

The "B" Class was a modest success, but there was simply not enough of them togo around. The quick fix was to buy American with EMD road switchers in the form of the B121 and B141 classes. At 875hp these were approxiately the same size as the successful B101s.

The B121s allowed the elimination of steam on freight work, whilst the B141 class provided a cushion against the unreliability of the Metro-Vicks. The B181 initially took over local passenger work from the worn out railcar fleet, but were soon used in pairs on principle expresses as a replacement for the "A" class which then took over intermediate passenger duties. These three classes arrived in 1961-67.

CIE's dieselization was complete in 1963. The As and the Cs were eventually re-engined with EMD 645 series units and were totally transformed. The new power units in 34 "Cs" were of 1100hp and thus C201-C234 became B201-B234. They lasted until 1984/5, mainly on Dublin suburban trains. They were made redundant by the electrification of Howth to Bray service, and the arrival of the 071s. The bulk "A" Class soldiered on as freight and intermediate passenger locomotives until the early 1990s when they were withdrawn as life expired. The heaviest and fasted passenger trains had first been reassigned to pairs of B141/181, and then to the 2500hp 071 class that arrived in 1977/8. The "Bs" with their non standard Sulzer enines were withdrawn in the mid-70s, and were lined up at the back of Inchicore Works as a sound barrier for the neighbouring housing estate.

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there any freight still moving on the rails in Ireland?

[ 04. October 2009, 11:13: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not much, but there is some.

The Norfolk Line container trains operate 3/4 time a week between Waterford and Ballina reversing at Kildare.

When the bridge at Malahide has been repaired the Tara Mines trains from Tara Mine near Navan to Dublin (North Wall) should restart.

There is still some cement traffic out of both Drogheda and Limerick including a three times a week bulk cement train for Limerick to Waterford over the old WL&W mainline.

Last time I checked there was still some shale traffice between Silvermines (near Birdhills) and Limerick, but that may have gone by now.

Recent freight-flow casualities have been

Timber from Sligo and Westport to Waterford, which ceased in the summer of 2009, but may restart.
Palletized Keg Guinness (2007)
Fuel Oil between Dublin-Sligo (2007).

Given the short distances between a port and anywhere in Ireland it is very difficult for rail to compete. Ireland has what is essentially a local delivery orientated freight market. That said, there is enough freight traffic still around for Irish Rail to refurbish its fleet of sixteen Cl.071s and repaint them in the new grey and black freight sector livery.

On the other hand, some of the newer 201s have been stored in working order due to decline in the number of loco-hauled passenger workings. As far as I can work out the requirement now is for eight locomotives for the hourly Dublin-Cork service, and three for the Dublin-Belfast service, with perhaps five locomotive available for Thunderbird duties. This means about half the 201 fleet is unemployed.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, here's a picture to gladden the heart of any rail enthusiast!

And, FTR, there's at least one host enjoying this thread! I might not have the knowledge, or the enthusiasm, shown here - but I have always enjoyed looking at/riding behind steam locomotives. Most recent ride was on this line. Four hours of nostalgia and wonderful mountain scenery too...

--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nice picture, TonyK!

PD, since it obviously interests you, there's another book in my collection that might capture your attention: "Diesel Pioneers" by David N. Clough, ISBN 0-7110-3067-7. I bought it because it contains information on the Fell engine, No 10100, but it essentially traces the stories of all of the original Modernisation Plan diesels in this country, in other words, all the 1950's classes of Types 1, 2 and 4, plus 'Deltic', 'Falcon' 'DP2' and 'Lion'. From it I learned that the CIE 'Crossleys' were very closely related to the D5700's in this country, also variously known as 'Crossleys', 'Metro-Vicks' or 'Co-Bo's'. They also suffered exactly the same faults, with serious crankcase cracking of the engines. The curiosity of it is that the D5700's were not a facsimile copy of the CIE locomotives (on 6 axles) ~ why this should have been seems to be a mystery. Possibly BR were not prepared to pay for 6 axles if they could get by on 5?

A total of 20 were built during 1958 and 1959. One can gather a lot about their success rating from the fact that all had been withdrawn for scrapping by September 1968, although one survived as a carriage heater (!) until January 1980. Reputedly this one was ultimately acquired for preservation (D5705) ~ does anybody happen to know what has become of it?

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No idea where it is now, but it was lifeless in Swindon and visible from the main line for many years.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
PD
Shipmate
# 12436

 - Posted      Profile for PD   Author's homepage   Email PD   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
Nice picture, TonyK!

PD, since it obviously interests you, there's another book in my collection that might capture your attention: "Diesel Pioneers" by David N. Clough, ISBN 0-7110-3067-7. I bought it because it contains information on the Fell engine, No 10100, but it essentially traces the stories of all of the original Modernisation Plan diesels in this country, in other words, all the 1950's classes of Types 1, 2 and 4, plus 'Deltic', 'Falcon' 'DP2' and 'Lion'. From it I learned that the CIE 'Crossleys' were very closely related to the D5700's in this country, also variously known as 'Crossleys', 'Metro-Vicks' or 'Co-Bo's'. They also suffered exactly the same faults, with serious crankcase cracking of the engines. The curiosity of it is that the D5700's were not a facsimile copy of the CIE locomotives (on 6 axles) ~ why this should have been seems to be a mystery. Possibly BR were not prepared to pay for 6 axles if they could get by on 5?

The front design of the CIE locomotives was influenced by Bulleid. You'll see a certain family resemblance between the Cl. 70 electric locomotives and experimental diesels Bulleid built for the Southern and the CIE "A" and "C" classes. Another influence on the design was the relatively low axle loadings permitted on some Irish branchlines lines. IIRC the "A" class had a maximum axle load around 14T.

British Railways did not need to be anywhere near so restrictive. The 1200hp Crossley engine with all the attendant electrical gear was a little too heavy for a four axle locomotives. However, why Metro-Vick went for the assymetrical arrangement rather than build a light axleload Co-Co I cannot speculate.

So why did the CIE rebuild its Crossley locomotives, rather than replace them as BR did? The "A" and "C" classes were a major chunk of CIE's fleet there was therefore an incentive to try and sort them out. The electrical side was sound, so what they needed was a prime mover that did not crank-up or catch fire.

CIE initially tried a Maybach engine in a couple of the "C" class, which was better, but still not good. Eventually, after a certain amount of arm twisting, CIE got EMD to sell them enough 8- and 12-cylinder 645 series engines to rebuild the "A" and the "C" classes. The rebuilt locomotives were almost as reliable of the CIE GM fleet. The re-engined "A" handled most long distance passenger trains in the 1970s and early 1980s, and again between 1989-1994 when CIE figured out that double heading with 121/141 locomotives was an expensive way of running a railway. Most of the rebuilt "As" were governed down to 1360hp though theoretically they could produce 1650hp. The "Cs"
had their horsepower doubled to 1100 by rebuilding, and they became the mainstay of Dublin suburban trains after the railcars were de-engined and turned into push-pull sets.

PD

--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!

My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com

Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Waiting for the one passenger train of the day recently, I was somewhat startled to see the local switch run out the few industries east of town come by with TWO 4400 HP locomotives hauling exactly TWO cars of scrap.

CN has been trying very hard to become a low-operating-cost line, which has meant clearing out every bit of old stuff, so there are, apparently, no switch locomotives left. But this seems like a bit of overkill.

Of course, management would like everything to be containerised and have all local work done by truck. TBF, they are dropping/picking up literally hundreds of boxes in Moncton for the 600 miles or more to Montreal, and then onward. The number of cars to be shunted dropped off enough that the hump has been gone for many years, leaving the "new" yard (only 40 years old) a weed-grown desert.

Train lengths are up, too - typically 6000 to 8000 feet but often more. Kind of interesting for the engineer to consider that his train is actually going in several various directions at the same time.

--------------------
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      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A company I used to work for was persuaded to switch to piggypack trailers to ship electrical transformers to BC. It was cheaper that way.

Local switching has been in terminal decline (no pun intended) for forty years now. In Peterborough only Quaker Oats, Canada Malt and GE ship by carload anymore. Quaker receives hoppers full of raw materials. The boxcar is looking increasingly to be a thing of the past. Which maybe a good thing, as it seems intermodal is better for everybody.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
daviddrinkell
Shipmate
# 8854

 - Posted      Profile for daviddrinkell   Email daviddrinkell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Well, here's a picture to gladden the heart of any rail enthusiast!

Yes indeed!

However, the caption describes Tornado as the first steam locomotive to have been built in Britain for fifty years. Surely that's not quite true?

'Norfolk Hero', on the Wells & Walsingham Railway (a 10 1/4 gauge 2-6-0+0-6-2 Garrett, no less!) was built in 1986. It was designed in Britian and presumably built there too.

http://www.wellswalsinghamrailway.co.uk/

I bet there are a few others....

--------------------
David

Posts: 1983 | From: St. John's, Newfoundland | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Presumably either "mainline" or "standard gauge" was supposed to be included.

Obviously, there have a significant number of...what's the polite term?...miniature? narrow gauge? locomotives built by individuals over the years.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
this thread exists just to torture hosts, doesn't it?

be honest, you aren't really discussing anything, just talking gibberish and giggling behind your hands imagining us turning our heads one way, then the other, like a dog watching Rocky the Flying Squirrel on TV.

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
this thread exists just to torture hosts, doesn't it?

be honest, you aren't really discussing anything, just talking gibberish and giggling behind your hands imagining us turning our heads one way, then the other, like a dog watching Rocky the Flying Squirrel on TV.

It amuses us as much as others are enthralled by threads on whisky/whiskey, beer and wine, or those on X Factor, Pop Idol and Strictly Come Gardening On Ice or whatever it is this week.

Comparisons about tractive effort and the merits of Swindon's front-end design against Doncaster's variations are no more esoteric than your average post in Ecclesiantics. And +Eric Treacy was a noted railway photographer: heck, railway modelling used to be the done thing amongst Anglican clergy!

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  26  27  28 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools