Famous Modellers

[NeMo]

I'd love to see a book of anecdotes by drivers rather than trainspotters. I've come across that Nock quote more than once, and have the Clough & Beckett book on BR motive power performance kicking about somewhere, and as Sprintex points about above, neither are very kind to the Class 52s. On the other hand, I've read one or two comments by drivers about how strong these locomotives were, and of course Colin Marsden usually has good things to say about them too!

Both Nock and Clough & Beckett focus on speed, and use that as the be-all and end-all measurement of performance. But I wonder if that's valid. Why did the 'Westerns' have a good reputation at Foster Yeoman for working their heavy stone trains when compared with, for example, the more modern and far stronger Class 56s?

Cheers, NeMo

[Sprintex]

Surely a higher sustained speed pulling up a gradient would directly equate to how much power was available to achieve it? Fair enough acceleration from standstill isn't taken into consideration and this is possibly where a hydraulic may have a flexibility advantage over a DE, but it's like cars - everything is measured by usable power output


Paul

[NeMo]

Surely a higher sustained speed pulling up a gradient would directly equate to how much power was available to achieve it? Fair enough acceleration from standstill isn't taken into consideration and this is possibly where a hydraulic may have a flexibility advantage over a DE, but it's like cars - everything is measured by usable power output

One aspect we don't always appreciate with diesels is that the power at rail isn't the same at all speeds. Historically (i.e., 50s/60s era diesels) tended to have particular speed ranges at which they applied maximum power to the rail. Comparing the 52s with the 47s, Clough reports the 52 only reached maximum power at 55 mph, whereas the 47 reached its maximum between 30 and 80 mph, a much wider and more useful range. This is one piece of evidence he uses to support the idea the 52s suffered from having a Voith transmission that wasn't a good fit for the Maybach engine, effectively hamstringing them right from the start.

On the other hand, Clough does admit that the 52s were good at sustaining power at the rail for a very long time without problems (what he calls, rather obscurely, "low continuous rating") and this was ideal for moving the heavy stone trains. How this was different to contemporary diesels is unknown to me, but presumably the reason the 59s were eventually ordered by Yeoman was that in some way the late 70s-era diesels weren't as good (at perhaps, not improving upon the 52s' performance at the pace Yeoman wanted or needed).

In other words, it wasn't the hydraulic concept that was flawed, but the 'Western', which wasn't a particularly well designed one (as much as it pains me to say it). The slightly earlier DB V200s by contrast went from strength to strength, spawning all sorts of derivatives and upgrades that worked across Europe, and the modern Voith 'Maxima' is a veritable monster of a locomotive that could probably take down a 'Deltic' and still have space left over for a couple of 'Sheds' on toast! It must also be remembered that many (most?) modern DMUs in the UK have hydraulic transmissions.

Cheers, NeMo

[Tom U]

Meanwhile, back in the 'Famous modellers' thread.....  

[Sprintex]

Thread had died off anyway


Paul

[Bealman]

I was thinking same thing (still on me phone  ), but didn't say nowt because its already 5 pages long.

Famous modellers?

The Rev. Peter Denny.

[kirky]

The Rev. Peter Denny.

Sorry George, I don't think that counts does it? Surely rev Denny is famous #for# modelling? I think the op was asking for celebs who share our hobby?

(Just keeping the thread alive:-) )

Cheers
Kirky

[EtchedPixels]

Most diesel electrics had a peak and a sustained power output rating. Put the needle into the orange too long and bad stuff happened to the traction motors. Hydraulics could generally sustain their power to the rail.

The 47s were also never as powerful as intended as the engines had to be downrated somewhat fairly early on.

Alan

[D1042 Western Princess]

Except the skin off a rice pudding apparently

However, when it came to drawbar horsepower the Westerns were less capable than the equivalent diesel electric locos. O.S.Nock states "whilst the Westerns took their rightful place as fast and powerful locomotives it became evident that they were showing the same deficiency in actual power put forth at the drawbar as the [diesel hydraulic] Warships had done. The highest output that came to my notice was a sustained 85 mph hauling 560 tons descending 1 in 1320, which equates to 1500 edhp (equivalent drawbar horsepower)". This is 56% of power at the flywheel, whereas for a diesel electric one would normally expect a figure of 75 to 80%. A similar result was obtained when Clough & Beckett compared the performance of type 4 diesel locomotives (Classes 45/46/47/50/52) hauling trains up the ascent to Whiteball summit. They deliberately chose data to show each class in their best light and included a Western run which produced 1775 edhp but they still concluded that "without doubt the Westerns get the wooden spoon, certainly not what one would expect from units of 2700 bhp". The best performer was the Class 50, a 2700 hp diesel electric locomotive, on one run this achieved 2115 edhp.

Paul

  If it wasn't steam powered OS Nock never had a good word to say about it.
Perhaps you didn't see the recent contest between a Western and the, nominally, far more powerful 67 (on a train of similar weight) when the Western left the much newer loco far behind.  I never take what authors say as "fact" when they rely only on "figures" such as that nonsense quoted above by Paul.
I mean no disrespect to Paul personally here but these figures do not give a proper showing of what the Hydraulics  could ACTUALLY do on the road.

[Agrippa]

I think this thread is drifting a millimetre or two off topic......

[NeMo]

I think this thread is drifting a millimetre or two off topic......

Maybe, but it's a lot more interesting now! Remember: the internet isn't a school exercise book; it won't run out of pages!

Cheers, NeMo

[NeMo]

Perhaps you didn't see the recent contest between a Western and the, nominally, far more powerful 67 (on a train of similar weight) when the Western left the much newer loco far behind...

Really? What was the incident? All due respect to the D1000 class, but it doesn't sound very plausible that it could beat a more powerful locomotive designed for 125 mph running!

Cheers, NeMo

[MikeDunn]

Gawd, now the disiesel-heads are fighting amongst themselves 

Who's up for the next round ?  Battery jobs or kettles 

And can we please get back on topic ?  If you guys want to argue about which smelly piece of tin-plate is better than the other, why not start your own thread, hmmm (so 99% of us can ignore it) ?  Or just fight it out in PMs, keep it off the board entirely ...

[Komata]

To bring it back to the original thread . .

Although no-longer well-known, might I suggest that the Maharaja of Gwalior's (literally) Silver Service Table Train set definitely places that individual in the 'Famous Modellors'' category?  If only because of his wealth, and position,  the M'rajah was definitely 'Famous' at the time.

AFIKR  the 'Silver Service' Train (which was actually, literally, solid silver in its construction), was 3rd-rail O-gauge (Basett-Lowke?) and capable of providing the degree of service that one would expect from an individual of such eminence, and to do so for a table setting of 60 individuals. I have not however ever been able to determine how it was controlled, or how it 'stopped on demand' when one was reaching for the Port, condiments or cigars.  Possibly a reed switch or something similar would have  been used, and no doubt someone amongst the membership will know.

Definitely in the category of 'they don't make them like they used to.

[Agrippa]

If the Maharaja  created that it  is  most impressive!

Any pix?