N Gauge Forum

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 1


Hello Chums

After wittering on in a post on my Poppingham thread about a locomotive being reboilered with a superheater, it occurred to me that modellers often use terms like this but might not be completely sure what is meant by them.

I wondered if it might be an idea to include a short series on our Fabulous Forum looking at steam locomotives from a 'N' gauge modeller's perspective.  The emphasis will firmly be on conventional British practice.  This means many fascinating experiments, developments and dead ends in steam locomotive engineering will be ignored.  Also, as this is a model railway thread, we'll be looking at steam locomotives from a 'N' gauge modeller's perspective.  Therefore, the analysis will tend towards the superficial.

I hope others, much more knowledgeable than me, will be kind enough to add their thoughts and views by way of discussion.

***

Rocket and Wheels

We need to start somewhere and, as I intend to limit my observations to the conventional 'Stephensonian' locomotive, what better place to start than Robert Stephenson's famous Rocket of 1829.?  You see, the principal arrangement of Rocket continued in mainstream British practice right through to Evening Star.  Or, if you prefer, Tornado.

We all know Rocket – a yellow locomotive with a separate tender.  A horizontal boiler, with a chimney at the front, mounted on wheels.  Driver and fireman together on a footplate behind the boiler.  Remove the adjective 'yellow' and the description could equally apply to Evening Star.  Even on the outside, Rocket set the norm for the steam locomotives that followed for more than 130 years.  And what is in the inside is even more important.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-071223145851.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137717)

[This picturingham shows Rocket, somewhat altered, in her final condition and her tender is missing.  Not yellow now!]


So, we start with Rocket.  Not the first steam locomotive and not even the first steam locomotive built by a Stephenson.  The investigation of pre-Rocket locomotives is a fascinating subject, more akin to the study of iron dinosaurs than iron horses.

As Rocket is fundamentally a horizontal boiler on wheels, we'll commence with wheels.

Right-o, as you know, Rocket looked like this, Oo – a pair of large diameter wheels at the front and a pair of smaller diameter wheels at the back.  Soon after Rocket, there were oO variants (Robert Stephenson & Co's Planet of 1830).  There were also OO locomotives, an arrangement that was also used on some pre-Rocket locomotives.

Then, in 1833, Robert Stephenson & Co. developed the OO into a OOo for the Leicester & Swannington Railway.  This was followed in 1834 (although construction commenced in 1833) by Patentee, for the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, which had a oOo wheel arrangement.  Again, in 1834, Robert Stephenson & Co built a OOO locomotive for the Leicester & Swannington Railway  Thus was born the six-wheeled 'Stephensonian' locomotive.  Not, of course, the first locomotives to have six wheels, but the first post-Rocket ones to do so.

I have deliberately omitted an important locomotive type here but we'll get to it eventually.

The next development came in 1837, unsurprisingly, from Robert Stephenson & Co, with locomotives of the oOO type for export to France and the USA.  The type entered service in Great Britain on the Great North of England Railway (between York and Darlington) which opened in 1841.

As you will have noticed, differentiating between several variations of four and six wheeled locomotives isn't easy.  And so it remained during the remainder of the Nineteenth Century with descriptions such as 'four wheels coupled passenger engine' in common use.  But, was that locomotive a oOO or a OOo?  Or, indeed, something else?

As time passed and larger locomotives, with more wheels, were making the problems of description even worse, an elegant solution appeared in a magazine article by Frederick M Whyte, published in the USA in 1900.  'Whyte notation' became immediately popular in the English-speaking world, with variations on the concept used in other countries.

Whyte notation counted a locomotive's wheels from the front and the types we have encountered thus far became:

Oo = 0-2-2
oO = 2-2-0
OO = 0-4-0
OOo = 0-4-2
oOo = 2-2-2
OOO = 0-6-0
ooO = 4-2-0
oOO = 2-4-0

Mr Whyte assumed it was normal practice to have little wheels at the front and rear of a locomotive and big wheels in the middle.  The absence of little wheels was indicated by the numeral 0 or naught.  Typically, in spoken English, this is frequently (and confusingly) pronounced like the letter 'O'.  Just like with '0' gauge and '00' gauge model railways.

Here is a practical example of what, when the 'LNWR 18-inch Goods' (commonly called Cauliflower) class was introduced in 1880, was known as a 'six wheels coupled* goods engine'.  And in Whyte notation a 0-6-0.  Much easier!


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-071223150611.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137718)

[No little wheels and six big wheels in the middle makes this Union Mills locomotive a 0-6-0.  Flossie and an interested passenger view proceedings.  Signalman Farmer stands at the bottom of his Lone Star signalbox's stairs.  He's not happy with the equivocal aspect of his Up Starting Signal.  Time to call out a S&T man


More later unless you tell me to stop.

* I'll cover the 'coupled' phenomonen in the next part.

My thanks to our MarvellousModerator @Bealman for his helpful comments on my idea for this series of postingtons and for his advice as to the most appropriate place on our FabulousForum for them to reside.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Toodle-pip

John

A nicely written starter.

However, it is usually suggested that Stephenson's PLANET was the first 'true' loco as the cylinders were at the front more or less under the smoke box, rather than at the rear.

Look forward to more, and additional posts.

Martyn

Please carry on John!

All the very best,

Tim

Please do carry on. 

I intend buying a black 5 to go with a rake of blue and grey mk 1s to cover the Cumbrian Mountain Express in the early 80s.  I've sussed out there's such a thing as rivetted tenders and otherwise but all the gubbins on top of the boiler and the various valve gear types are beyond my ken at the moment so would be handy to learn a bit more before the upcoming Farish release.

I guarantee I'll renumber one to suit 4767 and someone will say, "Pah!  That one never carried a sproghlejack top feed in preservation" or something.

Excellent, John. Please do continue. I'm sure that I'll learn a lot.

Excellently educational, keep it going please.

Quote from: SD35 on December 08, 2023, 07:59:40 PMI guarantee I'll renumber one to suit 4767 and someone will say, "Pah!  That one never carried a sproghlejack top feed in preservation" or something.

Well as you asked... 4767 is indeed a bad choice to renumber a Farish Black 5...  :(
It was uniquely fitted with 'Stephenson' valve gear instead of the standard 'Walschaerts' type as modelled by Farish.
(Hence it's preservation naming as "George Stephenson").
To their credit, Farish have recognised many of the main variations on Black 5s including long/short fireboxes, 2 dome positions plus domeless and combined dome & top-feed, welded and riveted tenders, but so far only Walschaerts valve gear, not Stephenson nor Caprotti which all look distinctly different.

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 2


Hello Chums

Before we get to Part 2, thank you very much indeed to your kind response to Part 1 and to @Bealman for giving me the confidence to attempt to write this series.

Quote from: SD35 on December 08, 2023, 07:59:40 PMPlease do carry on. 

I intend buying a black 5 to go with a rake of blue and grey mk 1s to cover the Cumbrian Mountain Express in the early 80s.  I've sussed out there's such a thing as rivetted tenders and otherwise but all the gubbins on top of the boiler and the various valve gear types are beyond my ken at the moment so would be handy to learn a bit more before the upcoming Farish release.

I guarantee I'll renumber one to suit 4767 and someone will say, "Pah!  That one never carried a sproghlejack top feed in preservation" or something.

Thank you for this.  As @PLD helpfullty mentioned (4)4767 is a unique and, in my view, excellent engine.  There were 842 'Black Fives' and the class had many variations during its construction spanning the years 1934-1951.  I'm so glad you are interested in this particular locomotive and will make sure I refer to her as often as I can as the series progresses.  She has many interesting features, including her valve gear.
Incidentally, she was built at Crewe during the same month as the LMS 1500hp Co-Co Diesel Electric emerged from Derby works.

**

Frames

In this postington, we will consider locomotives built on a fixed set of frames.  Frames are parallel to a locomotive's wheels.  Which means the frames and the axles connecting the wheels, on each side of a locomotive, are at right angles to each other.

In British practice the method of constructing the frames improved as processes in other industries developed.  Starting with wrought iron, or wood and wrought iron sandwich frames, and ending up with steel plate, the basic concept was unchanged.  Something to hold the wheels in place and to which other parts of the locomotive could be attached.  This resulted in the normal British view that a steam locomotive's identity lies in its frames.

Commencing with Planet, the early Stephenson locomotives had sandwich frames outside of the wheels. This was a common but not universal arrangement at the time and, by 1840, a locomotive could have inside, outside or double frames.  For a time, some locomotive engineers compensated for weaknesses in the materials the frames were manufactured from by having double frames, one set inside the wheels and one set outside.  These locomotives are often mistakenly referred to as having 'outside frames', but double frames is correct. Double frames were especially popular in the 1850-1875 period, although their use steadily declined after 1860 or so.  The concept lingered until the early Twentieth Century, on the Great Western Railway. 

In 1876, what is believed to be the first locomotive with steel plate frames was built in Great Britain.  It was a 2-4-0 of FW Webb's design for the London & North Western Railway (LNWR), and was built at Crewe Works.  Steel plate inside frames became the norm for steam locomotives built for service in Britain.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-081223094828.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137733)

[Probably the most famous of Mr Webb's 2-4-0 locomotives for the LNWR, Hardwicke of !892.  A later development of the pioneering 1876 locomotive but, fundamentally, similar.  By this time the use of inside steel plate frames was pretty much normal practice.]


The thickness of the steel plate increased slightly over the years.  By the end of volume construction of steam locomotives in Great Britain round about 1 ¼" thickness was normal.  Incidentally, cracked frames was a problem that was unresolved at the end of steam.  If steam locomotive development had continued in Great Britain, it is a distinct possibility that an alternative to steel plate frames would have been used, at least for larger locomotives, as in other countries.

We'll gloss over, for now, the interface between the axles and the frames.  If you'll bear with me, that subject can be put in a box at present.

One final point to make about frames is how far apart they are.  This dimension was important for locomotive designers.  As the first railways were built, there was a variety of track gauges (the distance between the inside face of two parallel rails) in use.  One example is the 5 foot gauge of the Eastern Counties Railway, the first section of which opened in 1839.

There were two main gauges in use in Great Britain, George Stephenson's 'Standard Gauge' of 4' 8 ½" and Isambard Kingdom Brunel's 7' ¼" 'Broad gauge, used by the Great Western Railway and associated companies.  Places where there was a 'break of gauge', most notably Gloucester, became chaotic with passengers and goods having to transfer between standard and broad gauge trains.  The Government became concerned about this and the Board of Trade appointed a Board of Inquiry to look into the matter.  Its report in 1845 resulted in the effective ban on the broad gauge extending northwards.  This was the beginning of the end for the broad gauge and just under fifty years later, it was no more, with all the lines which used it having been converted to standard gauge.

Incidentally, the Eastern Counties Railway had converted to standard gauge in the autumn of 1844.

Although the broad gauge lingered on for almost half-a-century, there wasn't a great deal of locomotive development for it and we shall concentrate on standard gauge from now on.

For locomotive engineers, to provide all the necessary clearances and to allow for the thickness of the frame plates, standard gauge meant that the distance between the insides of the frames of a steam locomotive was about four feet.  This will become jolly important in later postingtons.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Cheerie-bye

John

Do please carry on with this John, I am finding many answers to the many things I didn't know I didn't know! :D
Very well done!
Cheers :beers:

Quote from: PLD on December 08, 2023, 11:52:59 PM

Quote from: SD35 on December 08, 2023, 07:59:40 PMI guarantee I'll renumber one to suit 4767 and someone will say, "Pah!  That one never carried a sproghlejack top feed in preservation" or something.

Well as you asked... 4767 is indeed a bad choice to renumber a Farish Black 5...  :(
It was uniquely fitted with 'Stephenson' valve gear instead of the standard 'Walschaerts' type as modelled by Farish.
(Hence it's preservation naming as "George Stephenson").
To their credit, Farish have recognised many of the main variations on Black 5s including long/short fireboxes, 2 dome positions plus domeless and combined dome & top-feed, welded and riveted tenders, but so far only Walschaerts valve gear, not Stephenson nor Caprotti which all look distinctly different.

Thanks.  I guess that narrows it down to 5305 or 5407 then unless I go for one of the other classes.  Plenty of options to go at:

https://settlecarlislesteam.co.uk/headboards/cumbrian-mountain-express

Quote from: PLD on December 08, 2023, 11:52:59 PM

Quote from: SD35 on December 08, 2023, 07:59:40 PMI guarantee I'll renumber one to suit 4767 and someone will say, "Pah!  That one never carried a sproghlejack top feed in preservation" or something.

Well as you asked... 4767 is indeed a bad choice to renumber a Farish Black 5...  :(
It was uniquely fitted with 'Stephenson' valve gear instead of the standard 'Walschaerts' type as modelled by Farish.
(Hence it's preservation naming as "George Stephenson").
To their credit, Farish have recognised many of the main variations on Black 5s including long/short fireboxes, 2 dome positions plus domeless and combined dome & top-feed, welded and riveted tenders, but so far only Walschaerts valve gear, not Stephenson nor Caprotti which all look distinctly different.

i wasnt aware of these variations by Farish--please tell us more.

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 3


Driving and Coupled Wheels

The next thing we need to address is the fact that a locomotive is not much use unless at least one axle and its associated pair of wheels is driven or powered in some way.  We'll, hopefully, discuss later how this can be done, but, for now, let's simply assume that, in normal British practice in Queen Victoria's time, one axle would be driven and the wheels stuck on both ends of that axle could be quite big, big-ish, big, or enormous.

Here's that dodgy picturingham of Rocket again.  The powered wheels are the quite big leading wheels and the little wheels at the rear are simply to hold the back of the engine up.  Other than that, they are pretty much just along for the ride.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-081223093433.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137731)


We now need to stop for a bit and think about a railway where flanged metal wheels run on metal rails, as was pretty much the norm after Rocket.  This results in a very low rolling resistance, but also low adhesion.  The amount of the wheel in contact with the rail is very small indeed.  Much, much smaller than the often-mentioned man's hand contact area between a motor-car's rubber tyre and the road surface.  Victorian locomotive engineers thought that the contact area for a typical driven wheel was about the size of a penny – the proper 'old money' penny.

Which meant that locomotives intended to move heavy, trundling goods trains benefitted from having more driven wheels.  The way to achieve this was simple and went back to the earliest pre-Rocket locomotives.  Drive one axle and connect one or more axles to the driven axle.  This was occasionally done in the very early years by gear-type contraptions, but soon the much simpler device of coupling rods became standard.

The coupling rods were fitted to a crank on the wheels on the driven axle by means of a crankpin.  That way, two, three, four or five wheels (in Great Britain - other countries managed six!) on each side of the locomotive could be coupled together and the number of pennies in contact with the rail increased, to the benefit of adhesion.  Especially in the rain!


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-081223094802.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137732)

[This is a replica of Timothy Hackworth's Sans Pareil, which came second to Rocket at the Liverpool & Manchester Railway's Rainhill Trials in 1829.  She was a 0-4-0 of, at the time, fairly convention design.  Her defeat at Rainhill marked the beginning of the end of the era of Steam Dinosaurs.  You can see the crank, crankpin and coupling rod.  The use of coupled wheels pre-dated the Rocket era.  However,Sans Pareil had 4d's worth of driving wheel-to rail contact and Rocket had only 2d.]


Pedants might say that wheels attached to the driven axle are called driving wheels and the wheels linked to them by means of coupling rods are called coupled wheels.  But 'driving wheels' or, colloquially, 'drivers' is a common description.  Let's not argue about this - especially in the context of model railways where 'driving wheels' is pretty much the normal term employed. But please, please, don't call the coupling rods 'connecting rods' or 'con rods'.  These are a thing, but a very different thing.

Time for another couple of well-dodgy picturinghams.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-091223150039.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137767)

[A passenger locomotive having two axles coupled by means of coupling rods - 4-4-0 in Whyte notation.  4d worth of driving wheels' contact with the rails.  She also has double frames which makes it difficult to see the diameter of her driving wheels.  On the full-sized locomotive, they are 6' 8½" - big wheels!  Please ignore the front four wheels for now.  That's something for later]


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-091223150113.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137768)     

[A goods locomotive having all six wheels coupled together by coupling rods to maximise adhesion – 0-6-0 in Whyte notation. A 'tanner's' worth of driving wheels' contact with the rails.  Conventional inside frames, although some very similar locomotives had double frames.  Big-ish wheels - 5' 2" diameter.]


Closing Comments

Writing this sort of thing is dashed tricky and I am aware I have left a few things hanging in the air.  I believe these to be:-

1)  How the axles are attached to the frames;
b)  How at least one of the axles is driven, and
iii) Why the size of the driving wheels is important; including, maybe, something more on the importance of wheel-rail contact.

Please let me know if you think there are others.

Tempting as it is to address these these matters, I'm going to remain on the subject of wheels and frames for now.  They are all, of course, inter-related, but my coarse guide is trying to keep things simple.  Hopefully, you'll join me for the next postington in the series where we will move a bit later in Queen Victoria's reign and think about - oh my giddy aunt - locomotives with more than six wheels.

By the way, a little thought.  In my view, there were two 'long' fifteen year periods where steam locomotive development in Great Britain could be described reasonably as 'revolutionary': 1829-1845 and 1901-1917.  There was also evolutionary progress in other periods as we will, hopefully, see next time.

PS Rocket has quite big driving wheels of 4' 8½" diameter.  Same measurement as the track gauge.  Dashed clever chaps, those Stephensons!


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Cheerie-B

John 

Fantastic reading John, can you at some point please define connecting rods/con rods.

All the very best,

Tim

Quote from: Moonglum on December 10, 2023, 09:33:07 AMFantastic reading John, can you at some point please define connecting rods/con rods.

That will come under (b) in the "things left hanging in the air" in John's post

John,

As you know I have more or less zero interest in steam engines (or at least in the case of model railways I don't) but I have enjoyed reading the first three episodes of your new threadingham.

I look forward to learning. I've already picked up a couple of gems of which I had been hitherto unware.

Alec.

Excellent thread!

I hope you come back to Rocket when you discuss its boiler. I remember a school textbook that described most steam locomotives as essentially pre-Rocket or based on the Rocket.

As you say, what went before were clunky, inefficient machines with often bizarre mechanisms. But everything after Rocket was simply an improvement on its fundamental design. Possibly over-egging the pudding a bit, but I think makes a fair point.

Would make a lovely piece for the Journal, you know.  ;)

NeMo

Quote from: Moonglum on December 10, 2023, 09:33:07 AMFantastic reading John, can you at some point please define connecting rods/con rods.

Many thanks, Tim.  I'll describe connecting rods fairly soon.  Unless I divert myself.  And will probably include a picturingham.

*

Quote from: Invicta Alec on December 10, 2023, 04:53:43 PMI look forward to learning. I've already picked up a couple of gems of which I had been hitherto unware.

Groovy!  Thank you, Alec.  I'm attempting to include a few gems and, of course, much silliness in these postingtons.  Because 'N' gauge is such fun.

*

Quote from: NeMo on December 10, 2023, 07:02:06 PMI hope you come back to Rocket when you discuss its boiler. I remember a school textbook that described most steam locomotives as essentially pre-Rocket or based on the Rocket.

Thank you, Neale.  I'll most certainly mention Rocket's boiler.  I'd be seriously remis not to.  I agree with the textbook.  To expand slightly - Rocket, Northumbrian, Planet and Patentee.  Robert Stephenson's (who nowadays does not get the recognition he deserves - like Joseph Locke) quartet that set the development of the steam locomotive on sound engineering principles.

By the way, I have another Robert Stephenson innovation, which I think is less well known, coming up.

*

Thank you very much, chums, for those kind and encouraging comments.

All the very best.

John

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 4


Hello Chums

More than Six Wheels

During the period from 1840 to 1860, six-wheeled steam locomotives emerged as the normal types.  2-2-2 for passenger trains and 0-4-2 or 0-6-0 for goods.  However, that was also a time of experimentation, with many fascinating variations appearing, which turned out to be evolutionary dead ends.

To my mind, there were two factors which encouraged the development of the mainstream eight-wheeled locomotive.

The Bogie

The first was the patenting of the bogie by William Chapman in 1812.  This simple device, consisting of four wheels, on two parallel axles, mounted on a frame that could pivot, was being used in the Newcastle area for wagons which carried coal.  The term 'bogie' also has a colloquial usage, probably not so common nowadays, as a small-wheeled wagon or trolley.

As far as I'm aware, the first locomotives to move away from fixed frames and having a pivoted bogie was a 4-2-0,  built by Robert Stephenson & Co in 1833, for export to the USA.  Robert Stephenson is credited with the insight that a bogie could be used on locomotives, especially those to be used on lightly-laid and rough track, which was typical of early US railroads.  Its use in the USA became widespread and, in 1840-41, the Birmingham & Gloucester Railway imported 14 4-2-0 locomotives built by Norris of Philadelphia.  Another nine similar locomotives were built for the railway by British firms.

Tank Engines

No, not @Tank , the Locomotive Superintendent of our FabulousForum!  Leaving aside Novelty, which performed badly, albeit to popular acclaim, at the Rainhill trials, early locomotives had a tender behind.  Perhaps I had better rephrase that to say they towed a tender (the name derived from maritime practice) containing coal and water.

There were certain circumstances where the tender was deemed to be rather a nuisance and it was better to carry the coal and water on the locomotive itself.  This is a tank engine.  Not a 'tank', although the erroneous term 'Thomas the Tank' appears to be gaining in popularity.

Some of these were a little bit longer and heavier (carrying all that water) than 'normal' locomotives of the time and, to support the length and spread the weight, various eight-wheeled examples appeared.  Tayleur & Co. built three 4-2-2 tank engines for the Waterford & Kilkenny Railway (No, not a British railway, but instructive) in 1846.  Daniel Gooch designed a class of 4-4-0 bogie tank engines in 1849 for the Great Western Railway (broad gauge of course).

Most importantly, I think, in 1855, Robert Stephenson & Co built five 4-4-0 bogie tank engines for the North London Railway.  These were the first of what became the standard type of passenger locomotive used by that railway company.

*

Bogie Tender Locomotives

Apart from early the examples mentioned, the I believe the first important bogie tender locomotive type was Archibald Sturrock's 4-2-2 bogie express passenger locomotive of 1853 for the Great Northern Railway.  This set a trend which continued as late as 1901 with HA Ivatt's '267' class, also for the Great Northern Railway – the last 4-2-2 type built in Britain.  This type of locomotive, as with the 2-2-2 type, is often called a single-driver or a single.  Nonsense, of course, as they had two driving wheels – one on each side.  But, the terms predated Whyte notation.  I intend to say a little bit more about these later, but let's press on back to 1860.

By then the 2-2-2 was the most common type for fast passenger work, with the 4-2-2 also being used.  However, the 2-4-0, used before then mostly for slower passenger trains, began to take over from the 'singles' on the fast work.  The 2-4-0 slowly became the dominant type for express passenger trains until the 1880s, although some railway companies remained loyal to single-driver types.

Enter the 4-4-0 Bogie Passenger Tender Locomotive.

Just think of the 4-4-0 – alongside the 0-6-0 does it not, in your imagination, typify the 'normal' British locomotives of the late Victorian and Edwardian eras?

What was the first standard gauge British 4-4-0?  Not a trick question, but it was earlier than you might think.  The Stockton & Darlington Railway* had expanded from what we often think of it.  It has rather stuck in the public conscience as it was in 1825. Robert Stephenson & Co built six bogie 4-4-0 locomotives for the Stockton & Darlington Railway between 1860 and 1862.  They were intended for use on the Barnard Castle to Tebay line and, because of the potentially atrocious weather which could be encountered over Stainmore Summit, the first two had commodious American-style cabs and looked remarkably modern.  At the time, a simple weatherboard was deemed more appropriate and the next four were so fitted.

Apart from on the Great North of Scotland Railway, which received its first 4-4-0 from Robert Stephenson & Co in 1861 and ordered no more 2-4-0 locomotives thereafter, it took the 4-4-0 bogie tender engine about 15 years to fully establish itself.

Thomas Wheatley designed a couple of 4-4-0 bogie passenger locomotives for the North British Railway in 1871 and James Stirling introduced his famous '6' class for the Glasgow & South Western Railway in 1873.  SW Johnson produced an elegant 4-4-0 for the Great Eastern Railway in 1874 and followed it up with an even prettier design for the Midland Railway in 1876.  From then until well into the Edwardian era, the 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 pretty much reigned supreme.  Although, of course, there were many locomotives with different wheel arrangements in use.  The final 2-4-0 for a British railway company was built in 1903, by Beyer, Peacock & Co, for the Stratford-upon-Avon & Midland Junction Railway, No. 13 on that line.

The first national 'census' of British locomotive occurred in 1913, courtesy of the Board of Trade's Annual Railway Returns which now included this matter.  The total number of locomotives in use by railway companies was 23,664.  Of these, 7,310 were 0-6-0 tender locomotives and 3,168 were 4-4-0 tender locomotives.  Incidentally, there were 3,700 0-6-0 tank engines.  Which means that 10,478 out of 23,664 locomotives were tender locomotives of 0-6-0 and 4-4-0 wheel arrangements.  Or 44%.

By then, only 955 2-4-0 tender locomotives remained in service and their numbers were in sharp decline.

Can you guess what was the fourth most common wheel arrangement in 1913?  Answer at the end.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-111223100346.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137811)

[The most common locomotive types for main line work in 1913 - the 0-6-0 for goods or general duties and the bogie 4-4-0 for passenger trains.]


* The Stockton & Darlington Railway was merged into the North Eastern Railway (NER) on 3 July 1863. For legal reasons, it was managed separately as the 'Darlington Section' until 1876, when the former Stockton & Darlington Railway's lines became the NER's Central Division.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Toodle-oo

John

Answer: The 0-6-2 tank locomotive with 1,395 examples.  Mostly, but not always, a tank engine version of the 0-6-0 goods locomotive.

Hello John,
Wow! This is quite fascinating and I am learning a lot!
Many thanks indeed and please, carry on as much as you can.
Best regards,
Harold

Dugald Drummond, locomotive superintendent of, amongst other railways, the LSWR and Caledonian, is said to have initially declined to design locos with coupled drivers as 'it was like a laddie running wi' his breeks doon..'

But later changed his mind.

Whilst I'm already aware of most of the contents of what you're writing on this thread, I'm enjoying the way it's written. Keep it up!

Martyn

People who call the show "Thomas the Tank" are one of my pet hates. Anyone around me who does is promptly put straight.  :veryangry:

That was a great installment, by the way, John.  :thumbsup:

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 5


Hello Chums

Suspension

We'll continue our discussion about frames and wheels in this postington and we'll take a typical locomotive from the end of the Nineteenth Century as our example.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-111223104448.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137815)

[A North Eastern Railway 'R' class 4-4-0, later LNER 'D20'.  A first-class passenger locomotive with big coupled wheels – 6' 10" diameter.]


The frames are there to hold the locomotive together and all manner of things are attached to the frames.  The frames are made from steel plate and, rather than being simply long rectangles, are shaped as required to allow for the design of the locomotive – for example, they are less high at the front to allow room for the bogie, than they are in the middle.

The frames are joined to each other by means of frame stretcher plates or stretchers, which are vertical fabricated plates or castings at right angles to the frame plates.  These are sometimes solid, but often have a large hole in the middle, to improve access and reduce weight.  Additional strengthening bars, such as Horwich stays, might also be used to make the frames more rigid.  Incidentally, even when fully assembled as a unit, the plural 'frames' is used in Britain.

As you are probably aware, the most common model railway practice is for the axles to revolve in holes in the model locomotive's 'chassis'; sometimes the holes are fitted with fancy bearings (let's ignore sprung or compensated models!).  This is a very simple solution but, unfortunately, won't do for the real thing.  You see, apart from some early 'boneshakers', steam locomotives are equipped with suspension, consisting of springs between the axles and frames.  Which means the axles need to be able to move up and down in the frames.

Blimey – I thought this coarse guide was meant to be simple and we now have a moving axle – or, in the case of that nice shiny locomotive in the picturingham, four moving axles (and that doesn't include the tender).

Let's ignore the springing in the bogie, simply remarking it's like a smaller-scale version of that used for the coupled wheels.  Like in any vehicle with axles, the two axles for the coupled wheels need some sort of bearings to allow them to revolve easily and reliably.  The axle and bearing has a close fit, just sufficient to allow rotation of the axle, so the up-and-down movement required by the springing has to be accommodated between the bearing and the frames.

This was achieved by the bearing being in an axlebox, which looks rather like a metal cube with a big hole through it.  The axle revolves in the hole, with the bearing surfaces lined with 'white metal'* – very similar to the stuff the Union Mills 'R' 4-4-0 is made from.  A steel axle revolving in a soft white metal lining makes for a better bearing than using another hard metal surface.  Let's not get into the metallurgy, but, for so-called plain bearings, a combination of a hard and a soft metal is best.  The axlebox is divided horizontally into halves; both parts are placed around the axle and then held together with big bolts and nuts.

Now for the clever part, the frames have vertical slots called hornguides in them and, with a bit of attention to the bearing surfaces, the axleboxes can move up and down in the hornguides.  To control this movement, a spring – almost always a leaf spring derived from road coach practice, but much bigger and heavier - is attached to the frames and bears on top of the axlebox.

The white metal has a finite life and requires to be renewed from time to time.  If the lubrication fails, friction causes the bearing to heat up and the white metal can melt and run away.  This is what is known as a hot box.  The trick was (and is) to stop before the steel axle is damaged.  Designers did not always pay sufficient attention to having a large enough surface area for the bearing surfaces in the axleboxes, which meant that certain classes of steam locomotives were prone to hot boxes.  The Midland '4F' design is an example of this.  The locomotive was more powerful than its predecessors, but the axleboxes were not given an adequate bearing surface area.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-111223112052.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137816)

[The picturingham shows a '4F' 0-6-0, a class built by the Midland Railway and perpetuated by the LMS after the 1923 'Grouping'.  Powerful locomotives, they suffered from bearing troubles.  The model is a ProperlyPoole Graham Farish example and runs very nicely indeed with no trace of bearings running hot!  She is about 30 years old.]


The great advantage of this bearing system is that, due to the slots in the frames, a locomotive can be lifted off its wheels so that attention can be given to the bearing surfaces.  Replacing the white metal lining is called remetalling.

Interestingly, Union Mills models use a sort of upside-down version of this system with the axles revolving in a slotted 'keeper plate'.  This allows the axles to move to help cope with dodgy rail joints and suchlike, although they are not sprung.  It also means that a Union Mills coupled wheelset can be taken out in one piece – nifty, eh?


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-111223112119.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137817)

[A Union Mills locomotive (a GWR 'Dean Goods' 0-6-0) from below.  Undoing the two machine screws allows the 'keeper plate' to be removed...}


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-111223112145.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137818)

[... once removed and placed upside down, the 'keeper plate' gives an almost passable visualisation of the side elevation of a locomotive's frames.]


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-111223112219.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137819)

[And here is the wheelset, removed just like the real ones are, albeit they would have had their coupling rods taken off first.  Pressing a wheel onto an axle was a Main Works job, but many steam shed were equipped with lifting gear (or a wheel drop if one is being really fancy) in order to remove a wheelset to give any attention required.]

 
I think, having now made a coarse attempt to describe how a steam locomotive's axles are attached to the frames by means of sprung axleboxes, moving vertically in hornguides, I'll go and sit in a darkened room before inviting you to join me for a discussion of how we can try to arrange to make the wheels go round.  There will be an element of 'it'll never work in theory' about this.

* White metal - an alloy of tin, antimony and copper.  Sometimes a small amount of lead is included.  The ratios of the metals vary according to the intended use.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Tickety-tonk

John

John,
many thanks for another splendid article on "steam locomotives and how to make 'em" - informative, educational and entertaining as ever!

Best wishes,
Tfc49

Thank you John,

I have finally caught up with the thread having read the first instalment before departing for a alcohol fueled weekend in London.

It became rather impossible to keep following on my hand held mobile communication device with a glass of something in the other hand.

Back up to speed now, please do carry on old chap

Best Wishes
Mike H

PS is Poppy writing these interesting postinghams

Pretty good so far John, although I would like to point out that most locos from the 1920s onward have underslung axleboxes on their driving wheels - in other words, the bottom of the axle box is attached to the spring which in turn is attached to the bottom of the frames.

Regards,

Alex

Quote from: Hailstone on December 12, 2023, 07:46:26 PMPretty good so far John, although I would like to point out that most locos from the 1920s onward have underslung axleboxes on their driving wheels - in other words, the bottom of the axle box is attached to the spring which in turn is attached to the bottom of the frames.

Regards,

Alex

Hello Alex

Thank you very much indeed for this.  I was a tad concerned that the large degree of simplification I was indulging in with these posts might have been an irritation to you and others who have a much better knowledge of steam locomotives that I will ever achieve.

I have been attempting to take a broadly chronological approach and have used typical late-Victorian practice for the last couple of posts.  I am tying myself in knots at present and think I'll need to do another 'frames and wheels' post before I can get on to cylinders, valves and motion.

My plan, if it can be called a plan, is to move forward to just before outside valve gear became commonplace - say about 1910 or so.

Then, later in the series (if I don't give up!), to do several posts under the general heading of 'later developments'.  Outside valve gear, higher boiler pressures, double chimneys (and similar), roller bearings, perhaps manganese linings (but that's maybe going too far for the thread, rotary valve gear and suchlike.  I'll certainly be keen to mention underslung axleboxes then.

As for the original Bulleid 'Pacifics' - I haven't a clue.  They probably would benefit from a series on their own.  And 'Leader' (like Paget's locomotive) I'll leave to someone else!

Thanks, again for your support, Alex.  Every time I see a 'like' from you, I think I'm maybe just about achieving what I set out to do.  And, of course, posts from you for discussion are hugely welcome.

With all good wishes

John     

Really enjoying reading these John, picked up a few bits I still didn't know, keep them coming please!
Steven

I have enjoyed your trip though the development of the steam locomotive, and would like to offer a little information myself. many years ago when I was a member of the locomotive department at Didcot, a book came out which many of us found fascinating and occaisionally useful, it is "Building britains locomotives" by James W Lowe and is still available second hand via Amazon. I still sometimes refer to it.

All the best,

Alex

If the forum is still handing trophies out, this noble gentleman deserves one.  :thumbsup:

This 'coarse' guide is actually coming along nicely, John.

For anyone who wants to delve deeper, try 'Locomotives; their construction, maintenance, and operation' by A Morton Bell, in two volumes.

This goes really deep into what the title says, and is very thorough, if a long read.

The first volume is design and construction; the second volume more with maintenance, fault finding, and some theory. There are also chapters on electric and diesel locos, including the Twins.

I've no idea if it is available second hand; my copies are from 1948 and came from a former fireman, later driver, at Colchester shed.

There are other titles available, and Wikipedia has some articles on boiler design.

Martyn

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 12, 2023, 09:01:42 PMAs for the original Bulleid 'Pacifics' - I haven't a clue.  They probably would benefit from a series on their own.  And 'Leader' (like Paget's locomotive) I'll leave to someone else!   

I wouldn't worry about that - it was only a miniaturised adaptation of Walschaert's valve gear using chains and crankshafts instead of the more usual return cranks on one axle and the union links from the crossheads, all three sets being squeezed into an oil bath.
All carefully designed and assembled, of course, so as to increase the risk of wheelslip and lineside & boiler lagging fires  :smiley-laughing:

Quote from: Hailstone on December 13, 2023, 01:55:34 PM"Building britains locomotives" by James W Lowe and is still available second hand via Amazon.

Plenty of copies also available on Abebooks.

Cheers,

Chris

Hi John,

 a really excellent thread!   Have been away from the layout for a while but this is getting me right back into things!  I confess I'd never quite understood how bearings worked and the role of the white metal alloy.  I now think I get it thanks to you and understand why hot boxes occur

Cheers

 Graham 

Quote from: SD35 on December 13, 2023, 02:20:10 PMIf the forum is still handing trophies out, this noble gentleman deserves one.  :thumbsup:

:-[

Thank you.

John

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 6


Hello Chums

I'm Apologising Again

Oops-a-daisy!  Sorry, I'm first to admit it, but it turns out I was hopelessly optimistic when I mentioned in the last postington that our discussion would move on from wheels.  I hope this threadingham reads like carelessly-written gibberish, but it's actually jolly tricky gibberish to write.  It's all my own fault for trying to deal with one thing at a time when describing something as interrelated as a steam locomotive.  I decided to start with wheels and had intended to move on, in this postington, to discuss how the wheels are powered.  But, when attempting to write the text, I ended up tying myself in knots.

Which is a 'Poppy ate my homework' excuse...


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-131223203501.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137884)


...for this postington being about, contrary to as advertised, guess; Yes –

Wheels.  Again!

We had got to around the late Victorian period in the British steam locomotive's development.  Let's say the summer of 1894.  Imagine we have gone to the Highlands for the 'Glorious Twelfth' and are staying there until the end of September.

Great Britain started steam locomotive development and led the way for some years.  Our locomotives were generally well-built and fairly efficient by the standards of the time.  Increasingly, they were built in the railways' own workshops rather than by private locomotive building firms.  After the rapid development between 1929 and 1845 progress slowed.

Meanwhile, in the USA, development accelerated.  And locomotives tended to be built by specialised firms.  Think of the 'American' locomotives seen in so many Western films – often garishly decorated 4-4-0s.  These were used for both passenger and freight trains.  North American locomotives often had to travel for enormous distances compared to their British counterparts at the time.  Which led to the locomotives there becoming much bigger, much more quickly.

The 4-4-0 was replaced on the major US and Canadian railroads by larger locomotives with wheel arrangements such as 2-6-0, 4-6-0, 2-8-0, and 2-10-0.  Also, carrying wheels at the rear appeared, allowing 4-4-2, 2-6-2, 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 types to become commonplace.

Remember the difficulty describing locomotive wheel arrangements in Great Britain prior to Whyte notation in 1900?  Well, in North America, they got round the difficulty by giving the wheel arrangements names.  Here's some examples that made their way across the Atlantic (sorry!):

Atlantic – 4-4-2
Pacific – 4-6-2
Mogul – 2-6-0
Prairie – 2-6-2
Consolidation – 2-8-0
Mikado – 2-8-2

These names were pretty much universally applied in North America.  However, some of the later and larger locomotive types had different names for the same wheel arrangement, depending on which railroad was using them.  Confusing ++!

Following 7 December, 1941, the name 'MacArthur' was encouraged to be used instead of 'Mikado', although the latter was often shortened to the rather easier to say, 'Mike'.  Incidentally, this rebranding exercise appears a much simpler way to attempt to remove the name, 'Mikado', than Edward Thomson's rebuilding of the LNER's passenger 2-8-2 locomotives as 4-6-2s.

Having diverted us with typical Poppingham silliness, let's return to Great Britain and to our Inverness-shire shooting estate.  September is rapidly nearing its end and arrangements are being made for our return journey to Poppyshire.  A few days later, as we make our way south along the main line of the Highland Railway, we are treated to an amazing sight – a steam locomotive with ten wheels.  Oh, my giddy aunt! Yes, a Mancunian called David Jones has introduced Britain's first 4-6-0 - in the USA the type was called a 'Ten-Wheeler', but this never really caught on in Britain.

Primarily intended for goods work, the class became known as the 'Jones Goods', although the Inverness engineman I have met tended to pronounce it as "Joneses Goods".  This was an especially successful class and No. 103 remains in Glasgow, the city where she was built by Sharp, Stewart & Co.  The distinguished firm that built her was no stranger to the type, having already built many for service overseas.

The North Eastern Railway was next to introduce a 4-6-0 and many other railways followed.  Interestingly, three important northern railways, the North British, the Great Northern and the Midland never had 4-6-0 locomotives.  Likewise, the South Eastern & Chatham and the London Brighton & South Coast.

Some of the 4-6-0 designs of the late Victorian and Edwardian period were good performers, but others were rather mediocre.  Simply lengthening an existing 4-4-0 design into a 4-6-0 was no guarantee of success.  Interestingly, Mr Jones' 4-6-0 was an entirely new design.  What appears to be a similar 4-4-0, his 'Loch' class, was introduced two years later, in 1896.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-131223201909.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137882)

[A typical 4-6-0 of our period.  Resplendent in the famous LNWR 'blackberrty black' livery, this locomotive is a 'Prince of Wales' class 4-6-0, No. 86 Mark Twain.  The class was introduced in 1911.]


In 1889, five years before the introduction of the 4-6-0, the first 0-8-0 locomotives appeared in Great Britain, on the Barry Railway.  These had been built by Sharp, Stewart & Co for export to Sweden, but their customer was unable to pay for them. Beginning in 1892, FW Webb had lots of 0-8-0 locomotives built for the London & North Western Railway and some other railways introduced the type.

Incidentally, the Barry Railway examples were not the first appearance of an eight-coupled locomotive in Great Britain. In 1864/66 two 0-8-0 tank locomotives were built for the Vale of Neath Railway, two for the Great Northern and one for the Llanelly Railway.  All five had been scrapped before 1880.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-131223201124.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137881)

[An interesting British 0-8-0.  One of HA Ivatt's 'K1' class of 1901  for the Great Northern.  Class nickname, 'Long Tom'.  LNER designation, 'Q1' or 'Q2']


The 4-4-2 'Atlantic' first appeared in Britain in 1898, with HA Ivatt's design for the Great Northern Railway.  This was followed by Mr Ivatt's friend and mentor, JAF (later Sir John) Aspinall's, 'Atlantic' for the Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway in 1899.

The first 2-8-0 to be built in Britain was the Great Western Railway's '2800' Class, introduced in 1903 as part of GJ Churchward's plan for standardised locomotives.  In 1904, George Whale on the London and North Western Railway commenced rebuilding some of his predecessor, Mr Webb's, 0-8-0 locomotives as 2-8-0s.

Britain's first, and for 14 years, only 4-6-2 or 'Pacific' locomotive, The Great Bear was designed by Mr Churchward for the Great Western Railway and entered service in 1908.

I think this postington has mentioned all but one of the important developments which came after the typical British 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 types during the late Victorian and Edwardian periods.  Let's end (at last!) our present discussion about wheels at the end of 1911, the year of King George V's coronation.

Before we progress to how the wheels are driven, we'll have a quick look at tank engines – there was a plentiful plethora of types of these locomotives in the pre-1911 period.

But, before I make my escape, you might have noticed my use of 'all but one' a couple of paragraphs back.  I know we tend to think of 4-6-0s, 'Atlantics', eight-coupled goods engines and, of course, The Great Bear when we discuss locomotive progress in this period.  But we have left out the 2-6-0, which is, I think, a very interesting case for study.

Would you like to suggest what was the first British 2-6-0 – railway and year of introduction? 


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Pip-pip

John

Brilliant stuff, John. Triple  :thumbsup:

I can't quickly find a list on Google, but I think that some wheel arrangement names such as Atlantic, Pacific, were derived from the owning companies' name that introduced that wheel arrangement.

On the GER, the experimental 0-10-0 tank engine designed by James Holden was always known as the Decapod.

'Mogul' was derived from the first of this type in the UK, built for the GER in 1879, with first of class named named 'Mogul'.  This class was sometimes said to have been designed as an 0-6-0 by Adams (before he moved to the LSWR), but modified to 2-6-0 by his successor Bromley before they were delivered

Martyn

Really interesting read John, but not sure why you've got 'for 'N' Gauge Modellers'in the title, it's surely for anyone in any scale  :thumbsup:



Ed

PS: Aren't 4-4-0 wheel arrangements, which you didn't list, generally referred to as 'American'

Whilst I'm sure Martyn is generally correct that wheel arrangements were named after the company that owned the first example, I don't think that can be the case for the Mastodon! This is the 4-8-0, which is quite a rare wheel arrangement. I can only think of two companies that used it. The main one was Norfolk and Western who were so keen that they soon gave up on building 2-8-0s and never had any 2-8-2s, which was the normal progression from 2-8-0s in the American industry. The other company was the London and South Western, who's G16 class was designed by Robert Urie for hump shunting at Feltham and were tank engines.
Even rarer was the 4-10-0, which is rather alarmingly called a "Gobernador" after the first of the type, which bore that name. The engine was built for the Panama Railroad. In Panama they speak Spanish, of course, and it turns out that "gobernador" rather prosaically just means "governor" in that language. The only other engine I can think of with this wheel arrangement was No. 34 of the Gorre & Daphetid RR, but that probably doesn't count.

Quote from: Ali Smith on December 14, 2023, 11:17:07 AMWhilst I'm sure Martyn is generally correct that wheel arrangements were named after the company that owned the first example, I don't think that can be the case for the Mastodon! This is the 4-8-0, which is quite a rare wheel arrangement. I can only think of two companies that used it. The main one was Norfolk and Western who were so keen that they soon gave up on building 2-8-0s and never had any 2-8-2s, which was the normal progression from 2-8-0s in the American industry. The other company was the London and South Western, who's G16 class was designed by Robert Urie for hump shunting at Feltham and were tank engines.
Even rarer was the 4-10-0, which is rather alarmingly called a "Gobernador" after the first of the type, which bore that name. The engine was built for the Panama Railroad. In Panama they speak Spanish, of course, and it turns out that "gobernador" rather prosaically just means "governor" in that language. The only other engine I can think of with this wheel arrangement was No. 34 of the Gorre & Daphetid RR, but that probably doesn't count.

Correct.

I will modify my original post as it only applies to a few classes, I was thinking of Atlantic, Pacific, and Texas, and a couple of others

The list I've quoted in my previous post implies that there were more.

Martyn

Would the first British 2-6-0 have been a Midland Railway loco, imported from the USA ?

@joe cassidy

Quote from: joe cassidy on December 14, 2023, 11:25:26 AMWould the first British 2-6-0 have been a Midland Railway loco, imported from the USA ?

See post #36, the Midland version was not introduced until 1899.

Martyn

 :offtopicsign: This topic has suddenly gone wide, I'm scrolling to the right.

Is there a extra long line above?

Ed

@Newportnobby @Tank

Me too.........

Martyn

I noticed that earlier and had to reduce the size to 80% but that made the text small, of course.
From what I can see it's @chrism reply #30 that didn't wrap

My guess is it is the link in post #39 causing the problem

Quote from: Nbodger on December 14, 2023, 12:39:34 PMMy guess is it is the link in post #39 causing the problem

I though that, but it's back to normal now  :confused1:

It seemed to be only that page.

I've now removed the link, and it seems OK again.......sorry!

The Wikipedia entry is more or less the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whyte_notation

Other sites have the names as well, but the first one I quoted was handy as it showed the wheels as well.

Interestingly, this history of the Mogul says the first UK example was a tank for the Garstang and Knott end railway circa 1870. This is the first time I've heard of this, the GER example is usually quoted as being first. Perhaps the GER was just the first tender engine in the UK of this type.

https://locomotive.fandom.com/wiki/2-6-0


Martyn

 :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:

Back to John's Coarse Guide

I may be a modern image modeller, but am really enjoying this fascinating thread. Thanks so much for going to all the effort John.

cheers

John, My thanks to you for taking the time and making a super effort with this series, I am enjoying reading it very much. As with many things like this, I am always prompted to delve into things I have read further to find out more!
Cheers :beers:

Quote from: Newportnobby on December 14, 2023, 12:32:54 PMI noticed that earlier and had to reduce the size to 80% but that made the text small, of course.
From what I can see it's @chrism reply #30 that didn't wrap

There was nothing in that post that wouldn't have wrapped - no long URLs or wide pics - and it looks properly wrapped to me.

A fascinating guide, its interesting now that I live on this side of the Atlantic, that while I used to think of Pacific's being the biggest thing out there, I now consider them as small secondary line locomotives! We didn't really have any of the huge articulated locos here in Canada, but we did have CPRs big 2-10-4 Selkirks and CN's main power at the end of steam were 4-8-4 Northerns.  There we still plenty of smaller types of course, but the distances involved also really dictated that locomotives got bigger and bigger.  What I was ignorant of when I first moved here, was realizing that is wasn't all long slow freight trains on rubbish trackwork. Much of the roadbed was exceptional and passenger speeds we often very high (the Canadian steam speed record was 112mph albeit with a smaller CPR 4-4-4)

Hope this isn't a hijack, just thought there are interesting comparisons to make

Graham

Quote from: chrism on December 15, 2023, 01:35:42 PM

Quote from: Newportnobby on December 14, 2023, 12:32:54 PMI noticed that earlier and had to reduce the size to 80% but that made the text small, of course.
From what I can see it's @chrism reply #30 that didn't wrap

There was nothing in that post that wouldn't have wrapped - no long URLs or wide pics - and it looks properly wrapped to me.

Apologies. It was someone else but it's been corrected by the removal of a long link so all is well.

Quote from: martyn on December 14, 2023, 10:48:43 AMOn the GER, the experimental 0-10-0 tank engine designed by James Holden was always known as the Decapod.

Martyn

Apologies for yet another one of my thread drifts but Martyn's note reminded me of one of my favorite picture postcards - the Holden Decapod ("The Most Powerful Engine in the World").

Ian

Hello Chums


The next postington in this never-ending series is delayed due to foreseen circumstances (going to the theatre, visiting a chum in hospital and that sort of stuff).

I'd like to thank you for all your fascinating, kind and helpful contributions - I returned home both yesterday and today to a queue of 'Alerts' which was just about as long as the queue at the motor omnibus stop after the theatre.

Thank you for your ideas about the first British 2-6-0, one of which has resulted in a frantic session in my library.  It even caused me to look at the internet, which is something I avoid when writing these postingtons.

Your excellent discussion points will inform some later posts.  I'll do my best to mention your post at the apposite time.  Thank you so much - all your comments are greatly appreciated.

Thanks again and all good wishes.

Toodle-oo

John

Morning John

What an absolutely fascinating and well written feature I absolutely love it. Just wanted to say thank you and keep up the good work   :thumbsup:

 :offtopicsign:  :offtopicsign:

Quote from: icairns on December 15, 2023, 04:10:53 PM

Quote from: martyn on December 14, 2023, 10:48:43 AMOn the GER, the experimental 0-10-0 tank engine designed by James Holden was always known as the Decapod.

Martyn

Apologies for yet another one of my thread drifts but Martyn's note reminded me of one of my favorite picture postcards - the Holden Decapod ("The Most Powerful Engine in the World").

Ian

(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/3276-151223160750.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137898)

All the more amazing as the GER suburban services at the time were worked by J69s with a few 2-42T and G4 0-4-4s.

The K77/LNER  N7s were still twelve years away, or so, and then only two of them.

Martyn

Quote from: martyn on December 16, 2023, 01:15:38 PMAll the more amazing as the GER suburban services at the time were worked by J69s.
The K77/LNER  N7s were still twelve years away, or so, and then only two of them.

According to the Wikipedia article about it, the Decapod was only built for political purposes in order to block the passage through Parliament of a new rival scheme for an electric railway by demonstrating that steam could accelerate passenger trains at a rate comparable to electric traction.

It achieved that purpose but was otherwise impractical for regular use, or for more to be built, since the short wheelbase and high weight would have required many bridges to be rebuilt or strengthened. Accordingly, after only 4 years, it was rebuilt as an 0-8-0 tender loco assigned to coal train workings in the March district, but proved no more capable than the G58s. It was scrapped in 1913 as nonstandard after a short working life.

:offtopicsign:  :offtopicsign:

Quote from: chrism on December 16, 2023, 01:58:35 PM

Quote from: martyn on December 16, 2023, 01:15:38 PMAll the more amazing as the GER suburban services at the time were worked by J69s.
The K77/LNER  N7s were still twelve years away, or so, and then only two of them.

According to the Wikipedia article about it, the Decapod was only built for political purposes in order to block the passage through Parliament of a new rival scheme for an electric railway by demonstrating that steam could accelerate passenger trains at a rate comparable to electric traction.

It achieved that purpose but was otherwise impractical for regular use, or for more to be built, since the short wheelbase and high weight would have required many bridges to be rebuilt or strengthened. Accordingly, after only 4 years, it was rebuilt as an 0-8-0 tender loco assigned to coal train workings in the March district, but proved no more capable than the G58s. It was scrapped in 1913 as nonstandard after a short working life.

Agreed, I was trying to keep the post short, or encourage others such as yourself to dig deeper if interested. I've several GER based books which quote aspects of the design and reason for building.

Decapod in the USA was a 2-10-0, but this was only 0-10-0.

The tender actually survived and was used behind, mainly, I think, B12s.

Martyn

One last note on the Decapod 0-10-0T, but hopefully of interest to N gauge modelers.  Here is a photo of an N gauge model scratch-built by Peter Middleton (of Highfield Models fame) that appeared in the November 1997 Railway Modeller.


The other locomotive in the photo was also built by Peter Middleton and is, I believe, an NER Atlantic 4-4-2.  Both locos were built in the 1960s.

Ian

I'm loving this whole thread - thank you.
But this:

Quote from: icairns on December 15, 2023, 04:10:53 PM(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/3276-151223160750.jpeg)

just looks like it would be much more at home on Sodor.

Neil

Quote from: nickk on December 16, 2023, 12:07:02 PMMorning John

What an absolutely fascinating and well written feature I absolutely love it. Just wanted to say thank you and keep up the good work   :thumbsup:

Quote from: nickk on December 16, 2023, 12:07:02 PMThank you very much.

All best wishes.

John

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 7

Hello Chums

Thank you once again for all these jolly nice things you are saying about this threadingham and for the informative postingtons that are being made.  Thank you.

Yet More About Wheels and Frames

'Moguls'

The 'Mogul', or 2-6-0 in Whyte notation, had its origins in the USA in the early 1860s.  The type became possible due to the invention and patenting, in Great Britain in May 1857, by Levi Bissell, of a single axle swivelling truck.  Placed in front of a locomotive, the Bissel truck acted in a similar fashion to a bogie, helping to distribute the weight and guide the locomotive along the track.  This second attribute was especially important in the early days in North America, where the track had been laid quickly and sometimes roughly, without a lot of preparation, and the road-bed and was often poorly constructed.

Incidentally, as @grumbeast mentioned in his helpful post, North American track and related civil engineering improved enormously (in most instances) in the second half of the Nineteenth Century, allowing for much larger and heavier locomotives than were used in Great Britain to enter service.

More generally, please remember that patent, a type of single-axle truck became known as a pony truck.

Three years later, Robert Stephenson & Co built the first Bissell truck-equipped locomotive in this country - a 2-4-2 for the Belgian Great Luxembourg Railway.  In 1864, Robert Sinclair designed a class of 2-4-2 tank engines for the Great Eastern Railway.  These were built by Neilson & Co. and were, I believe, the first locomotives built for service in Great Britain with this feature. 

However, it was in North America that the pony truck, often called a 'lead truck', really caught on.  Even by the mid-Victorian era, Britain was beginning to fall behind the USA and Continental Europe with regard to locomotive innovation.  Especially for locomotives built for home service.  Those built by private firms for export were often more advanced designs than those favoured by British railway companies.

Eventually, Great Britain's first 2-6-0 design appeared in 1878 when Neilson & Co built fifteen locomotives for the Great Eastern Railway.  The main design work is attributed to William Adams, the Great Eastern's Locomotive Superintendent from 1873 to 1878.  Mr  Adams left for the London & South Western Railway before the design was complete and the final details, incorporating some American practice, were by his successor, Massey Bromley.  This was rather fortunate for Mr Adams because the class was not a success and was especially heavy on coal.

Interestingly, Mr Bromley, who unusually for a locomotive engineer at the time had an MA from Oxford, was appointed Works Manager at the railway's Stratford Works in 1874.  It is known that he visited the USA in 1876-77 where he saw at least one large 2-6-0 being built.  I wonder how much this influenced Mr Adams to think in terms of a 2-6-0 for the Great Eastern's heaviest coal trains.

Notwithstanding whom was responsible for what, the class were especially poor performers and heavy on coal, and the locomotives had short lives.  The last example of the class in service was scrapped as early as 1887 and the Great Eastern didn't risk another 2-6-0 design for the remainder of its existence.  Latterly, it built some truly massive 0-6-0 designs, but these are beyond our pre-1912 period at present.

Here's a works photograph of the first-built from The Engineer.  I don't know if she carried the name in service.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/137/6222-161223202856.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=137920)


Mr Bromley resigned from the Great Eastern in 1881 to join a friend in a engineering consulting firm.  He was killed in the Penistone accident on the Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway on 16 July 1884, aged 38.

From 1887 to 1895, the 'Mogul' type was not used on a British Railway as far as I can establish¹.

The next 2-6-0 type for Great Britain came as a result of interesting circumstances.  As a consequence of a failed export order, Beyer, Peacock & Co, had a locomotive left on its hands which had been intended for use in South America.  It was very similar to a large number of locomotives the firm had built for New South Wales.

To, I imagine, the firm's relief, the 'Mogul' was sold to the Midland & South Western Junction Railway in 1895.  She acquired the affectionate nickname Galloping Alice due to her gait when running along that lovely line between Andover and Andoversford.  I know that railway sounds like something from my Poppingham layout thread, but I'm not making this up – honest, Guv.

It's a happy story as she was successful, and the railway had second one delivered by the builder in 1897.  I warmly recommend C Hamilton Ellis' The Engines That Passed².  Especially, in this context, Chapter 4 'The Little Mogul of the Cotswolds'.  A charming story, expertly told, as one would expect from CHE.

The next turn of events is no less strange.  At the end of the Nineteenth Century, British railways' works were busy with locomotive construction and maintenance.  The locomotive building industry was also suffering a backlog in fulfilling orders as a consequence of the engineering workers' strike of July 1897 to January1898³.

This unfortunate circumstance, coupled with an urgent demand for new locomotives, resulted in three British railways purchasing a total of seventy 'Moguls', of distinctly American aspect, only gently modified for British requirements, from Baldwin and ten from Schenectady Locomotive Works (this firm became part of ALCO in 1901) in 1899-1900.
 
Whilst meeting an urgent need for locomotives, it is fair to say that the owning companies, Great Central (20), Great Northern (20) and Midland (40 - 30 from Baldwin and the 10 Schenectady examples) were less than enthusiastic about these imports.  Withdrawals commenced in 1909 and concluded in 1915.


A Diversion

The speed of delivery of the USA 'Moguls' was indicative of the amount of competition the British private locomotive building industry was facing.  It had less support from its home railways than the US manufacturers enjoyed, as the larger (and some not so large) British railways preferred to build locomotives in their own works at this time.

The US locomotive industry was a serious competitor to British builders.  Here are some figures borrowed from the late John Thomas' fascinating book, The Springburn Story⁴.

The Baldwin company had increased annual locomotive production from 313 in 1894 to 1,533 in 1902 and was making inroads into traditional overseas markets for British-built locomotives.

Perhaps even more worryingly, in round figures, Baldwin built the 313 locomotives with 1,400 men.  At the same time, the Glasgow firm of Neilson, Reid built 200 locomotives with 2,500 men.  British productivity worries are no recent phenomenon. 


Three Great Western Designs

The next three, yes three, British 2-6-0 designs were for the Great Western Railway.  Two different types, with double frames, were designed when William Dean was Locomotive Superintendent, entering service between 1901 and 1903.

Mr Dean commenced his service with the Great Western in 1855 and remained there until he retired in June 1902.  However, it is generally accepted that Mr Dean, who was suffering from ill-health, was something of a figurehead for his last five years in office, as George Jackson Churchward (of whom more later) was promoted as Mr Dean's Chief Assistant in September 1897.

The years of the Dean/Churchward transition saw some experimental types enter service, nominally attributed to Mr Dean, but clearly incorporating Mr Churchward's ideas.

The first Great Western 'Mogul' was a 2-6-0 variation of the experimental 4-6-0, No. 2601, of 1899 which was nicknamed Kruger⁵.  The first 2-6-0, No. 2602, built in the same year, was called Mrs Kruger!  Another eight '2602' class 2-6-0s, Nos. 2603 to 3610, were built from 1900 to 1903.  The class was very short-lived, being withdrawn by the end of 1906.

The second Great Western 2-6-0 design was the 'Aberdare' class, a much more successful design, of which 72 were built between 1900 and 1906. The nine '2602' class 2-6-0s were officially 'renewed' as additional members of the 'Aberdare' class in 1906.  There was presumably rather a lot of an accountancy exercise about this 'renewing'.

The 'Aberdares' were more successful and were withdrawn over a protracted period between 1934 and 1949.

The final Great Western 2-6-0 was a typically Churchward design, with inside frames, although it was Harold Holcroft who suggested the concept of a mixed-traffic 'Mogul' to Mr Churchward.  This was the well-known '4300' class, of which 342 were built.  The class was a synthesis of Churchward standard parts.  This class was introduced in the final year of our present period - 1911.


Bar Frames

No, not that kind of bar, although, if you have read this postington thus far, a visit might be in order for medicinal purposes.  Mention of Mr Churchward's designs reminds me that I have not, thus far, introduced you to bar frames.  These were common in overseas steam locomotive practice but, apart from early designs such as those by Edward Bury, did not find favour in Great Britain.

The American-built 'Moguls', mentioned ante, had bar frames.  Mr Churchward also used them in the de Glehn-type bogie which he favoured for his bogie locomotives.

Instead of using shaped metal plates, bar frames comprise an assembly of forged rectangular-section metal bars.  How best to describe these to a railway modeller?

Perhaps the best way will be if you imagine a plate frame as the surface of a traditional, nicely old-fashioned solid-top baseboard, like I use for my 'train-setty' table-top railways, laid vertically lengthwise along its longest edge.

Now, please imagine the framework for an open-top baseboard, as used by serious modellers (perhaps someone has a photograph) laid vertically lengthwise along its longest edge.  That, spectacularly crudely put, is the difference between plate and bar frames.

***

Here are some pretentious footnotingtons:


¹ The 2-6-0 tank engine for the Garstang & Knott End Railway, helpfully mentioned by @martyn , has caused a flurry of activity and I'll deftly postpone my thoughts on this until the next postington, which, if I don't run away, will be about tank engines.

² C Hamilton Ellis, The Engines That Passed, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1968.
 
³The strike did not affect all of the British locomotive building industry.  In Glasgow, the employees of Sharp, Stewart & Co, a public company, joined the strike, whereas those of the privately-owned Neilson, Reid & Co remained at work.  Hugh Reid, who controlled the firm, refused to join the Federation of Engineering Employers.

⁴ John Thomas, The Springburn Story, David & Charles, Dawlish, 1964.

⁵ After the Boer leader.  It is fair to say that No. 2601 wasn't a pretty locomotive.  Nos. 2602/10 weren't much better.  In my opinion, of course.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Cheerie-B

John

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 16, 2023, 08:44:19 PMAt the end of the Nineteenth Century, British railways' works were busy with locomotive construction and maintenance.  The locomotive building industry was also suffering a backlog in fulfilling orders as a consequence of the engineering workers' strike of July 1897 to January1898³.

This unfortunate circumstance, coupled with an urgent demand for new locomotives, resulted in three British railways purchasing a total of seventy 'Moguls', of distinctly American aspect, only gently modified for British requirements, from Baldwin and ten from Schenectady Locomotive Works (this firm became part of ALCO in 1901) in 1899-1900.
 
Whilst meeting an urgent need for locomotives, it is fair to say that the owning companies, Great Central (20), Great Northern (20) and Midland (40 - 30 from Baldwin and the 10 Schenectady examples) were less than enthusiastic about these imports.  Withdrawals commenced in 1909 and concluded in 1915.

Smaller railway companies were also affected by this supply shortage. The Barry Railway bought five 0-6-2 'coal tanks' from the USA (https://rmweb.co.uk/blogs/entry/25144-barry-railway-k-class/) (designated K Class but known as Barry Yankees) which eventually found their way into GWR service, the last being retired in 1932.

Mike

Weren't the Barry K class  0-6-2s rather than 2-6-0s?

Martyn

Quote from: martyn on December 18, 2023, 06:42:11 PMWeren't the Barry K class  0-6-2s rather than 2-6-0s?

Martyn

Whoops!

Thank you very much, chaps, for this interesting discussion.  In 1900, the Barry Railway received five 0-6-2T engines from the Cooke Locomotive & Machinery Works.  These were Nos. 117-121 of the Barry Railway.

That same year, the builder supplied another two locomotives for use in South Wales.  These were Nos 20 and 21 of the Port Talbot Railway & Docks Co and were of the 0-8-2T type.  This company was taken over by The Great Western in 1908.

There is a splendid article, complete with drawings, by the late Dennis Allenden about these locomotives called 'Paterson To Pontypridd' in the December 1977 issue of Model Railways.  I enjoyed re-reading it when preparing this postington.  Hard to believe I first read it 46 years ago, though.

Back in the 'Roy Dock Years', Dennis Allenden contributed some absolutely fascinating articles to the magazine.  This was the last article he had submitted to the magazine prior to his death, aged only 52, the previous February.

Thanks again and all best wishes.

John

Thanks all this is so interesting  :thumbsup:

Just wondering, is the welsh connection the reason 5619 an 0-6-2 designed by Mr Collett and built in Swindon, I believe, is sometimes refferred to as a taffy tank. (no offence to anyoine Welsh obviously) . Its currently looking slightly daft sporting a cow catcher, large headlight, and bell for Polar Express duties. Still the kids love it and it a great money spinner for our small local preserved railway

All very, very interesting. Many thanks to John, and everybody who has added their two-penn'orth. I already knew about the Decapod, but not that it had such a short life, and I hadn't realised the GER was quite so innovative. And I used to think I knew quite a bit about the GER too... Looking forward to more fascinating facts!

 :toot:  :toot:

Cheers,

Chris

 :offtopicsign:  :offtopicsign:

Quote from: Papyrus on December 19, 2023, 03:12:37 PMAll very, very interesting. Many thanks to John, and everybody who has added their two-penn'orth. I already knew about the Decapod, but not that it had such a short life, and I hadn't realised the GER was quite so innovative. And I used to think I knew quite a bit about the GER too... Looking forward to more fascinating facts!

 :toot:  :toot:

Cheers,

Chris

Oil firing, most intensive steam suburban service in the world (I think), busiest station (?-one of, anyway) most powerful 0-6-0 in the UK until the Bulleid Q1....

Martyn

Quote from: Papyrus on December 19, 2023, 03:12:37 PMAll very, very interesting. Many thanks to John, and everybody who has added their two-penn'orth.

Thank you very much, Chris.  In particular, thank you for mentioning the contributors to the discussion, as that is where the really interesting stuff can be found and I'm especially grateful to them.

The GER gets mentioned in my next postington.  There might even be a picturingham of a blue tank engine - no, not Thomas.

Thanks again and all best wishes.

John

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 19, 2023, 04:30:53 PMThe GER gets mentioned in my next postington.  There might even be a picturingham of a blue ... engine

Ah yes, blue engines. I know 4-4-0s were several chapters ago, but I couldn't resist taking your cue to post a picture of what I, and a few others, think is the most elegant steam loco ever built*, Holden's 'Claud Hamilton'.

(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/2975-191223172455.png)

Sadly, I don't think either the UM model or the BHE kit do justice to it, but that hasn't stopped me buying two UMs.

Keep up the good work,

Cheers,

Chris

* I'm prepared to accept a counter-argument in favour of Stirling's 8ft Single...

 :offtopicsign:  :offtopicsign:  :offtopicsign:

 

Quote from: Papyrus on December 19, 2023, 05:28:39 PM

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 19, 2023, 04:30:53 PMThe GER gets mentioned in my next postington.  There might even be a picturingham of a blue ... engine

Ah yes, blue engines. I know 4-4-0s were several chapters ago, but I couldn't resist taking your cue to post a picture of what I, and a few others, think is the most elegant steam loco ever built*, Holden's 'Claud Hamilton'.

(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/2975-191223172455.png)

Sadly, I don't think either the UM model or the BHE kit do justice to it, but that hasn't stopped me buying two UMs.

Keep up the good work,

Cheers,

Chris

* I'm prepared to accept a counter-argument in favour of Stirling's 8ft Single...

The design was good enough to win a gold medal at the 1900 Paris exhibition...

The loco illustrated is the second series built with Belpaire boiler:the originals were round top. Credited to James Holden, the design was actually done by the Stratford design staff under Frederick Russell as Holden was ill at the time.

Later rebuilt by Gresley (actually Thompson when he was in charge at Stratford).

Martyn

Quote from: nickk on December 19, 2023, 06:47:14 AMThanks all this is so interesting  :thumbsup:

Just wondering, is the welsh connection the reason 5619 an 0-6-2 designed by Mr Collett and built in Swindon, I believe, is sometimes refferred to as a taffy tank. (no offence to anyoine Welsh obviously) . Its currently looking slightly daft sporting a cow catcher, large headlight, and bell for Polar Express duties. Still the kids love it and it a great money spinner for our small local preserved railway

Thank you very much.  Yes, the '56xx' class was designed primarily for use in South Wales.  The pre-Grouping South Wales companies had come to the conclusion that the 0-6-2T was the ideal locomotive type for working in the Valleys.  After the Grouping in 1923, when these companies became part of the even greater Great Western Railway (GWR), a survey of all acquired locomotives was carried out.  There were a fair amount of South Wales 0-6-2T locomotives in poor condition - effectively they were worn out.  Many were in good condition and the GWR commenced a programme of rebuilding them with standard or modified GWR boilers.

However, the ones in poor condition were to be scrapped, which would cause a locomotive shortage.  Mr Collett arranged for the Swindon drawing office to design a new 0-6-2T, based on the Rhymney Railway 'R' class 0-6-2T.  Design and construction proceeded quickly and the first of the new class was tested in steam in December 1924.  I'm given to understand the test was not a success as, due to a design error in how the valve gear was supported, the valve spindles bent which restricted the valves' movement.

It appears an urgent re-design was carried out and new drawings were issued to provide for the necessary modifications. There is a suggestion that the dating of the drawings was such as to imply this matter had been thought about in August rather than December, 1924.  The valve motion of the class is supposed to be particularly inaccessible due to the large support bracket for the valve gear which was then provided.

Notwithstanding, the class was successful in service and 200 were built between 1924 and 1928.  Such was the urgency that 50 of these were built by Armstrong Whitworth which delivered them at five per week.

I have heard tell of another, rather less than complimentary, name for this type of engine and wonder if @Hailstone might care to repeat it on our FabulousForum.

   
Thanks again and all best wishes

John

So interesting thank you so much, John. 6519 is our star loco at Telford Steam Railway and until recently was out on loan until she was returned for 10 year check and boiler test which she passed with flying colours  :thumbsup:

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 8


Hello Chums

Tank Locomotives

If you recall, towards the end of the Nineteenth Century in Great Britain, two types of tender locomotive had become so commonplace that they could almost be described as British standard types – the 4-4-0 for passenger work and the 0-6-0 for goods and general duties.  The 2-4-0 was fast becoming outdated and the 0-4-2, although popular on the Great Northern and Glasgow & South Western for mixed traffic duties, was not that common, althought the London & South Western had some attractive examples.  Mr Stroudley's 0-4-2 passenger locomotives (he didn't like bogies) on the London Brighton & South Coast Railway were being superseded on top passenger work by Robert Billinton's 4-4-0 designs.  As for 'single driver' types, it appeared they had had their day, but something fascinating was about to happen.  That's maybe a subject for a later postington, though.

However, when it came to tank locomotives, no such apparent consensus appeared and locomotive designers seemed to delight in building locomotives with as many wheel arrangements as possible.  There could be any even number of wheels between four and 12, in a glorious diversity of arrangements.  There wasn't even a consensus between passenger and goods type – for instance, 0-6-2 or 0-6-4 tank engines were built for either type of duty, depending on the railway concerned.

Before we consider some of these wheel arrangements, let's pause to establish what a tank locomotive is.  Put simply, unlike a locomotive towing a tender, the coal and water required for its duties are carried on the locomotive and no tender is required.

The main advantages are the locomotive is shorter, saving platform space, particularly useful at terminus stations, and, in theory, it can run as happily in reverse as in forward gear.  In practice, enginemen often turned a tank locomotive to run chimney first if there was sufficient time and a convenient opportunity to do so presented itself.

The disadvantages were a shorter range before requiring to take water (and, less importantly, coal) than a tender locomotive.  All the coal and water carried on the locomotive increased its weight and water sloshing about in tanks that were higher up on the locomotive could make it unsteady at speed.

There were four main varieties of tank locomotive, having side, saddle, pannier and well tanks respectively.  Whyte notation uses a suffix to designate these types, as the following picturinghams will, hopefully, show:-


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/6222-201223090146.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=138022)

Side tank - 0-6-0T

(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/6222-191223212312.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=138017)

Saddle tank - 0-6-0ST

(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/6222-191223212339.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=138018)

Pannier tank - 0-6-0PT

(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/6222-191223212408.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=138019)

Well tank - 0-4-0WT


At the time of the Board of Trade's locomotive 'census' in 1913, tank engines accounted for 40% of the railways' locomotive stock, with the most common types in service being:

0-6-0T = 3,700
0-6-2T = 1,395
0-4-4T = 1,233
2-4-2T = 1,004
4-4-2T =    455

These types were not in any way equally distributed amongst the railway companies.  The proportion of tank engines in railways' locomotive stock varied widely.  Some of the smaller railways, including the South Wales companies and the London, Tilbury & Southend used tank engines almost exclusively.

Amongst the larger companies, as reported in 1913, the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway's proportion of tank engines was 73%.  The Great Western came in at 55% - a third of its total locomotive stock consisted of 0-6-0 tank engines, mostly saddle tanks at that time.

As for the Glasgow & South Western, with its heavy short distance passenger services from St Enoch to Ayrshire and Renfrewshire – 7%.

The Lancashire & Yorkshire took a different approach and most of its short-distance services (and some not so short) were worked by its legions of 2-4-2T locomotives.  It put 300 2-4-2T engines into service from 1889 to 1911.  Incidentally, the Lancashire & Yorkshire built 20 2-6-2T locomotives, essentially an enlarged 2-4-2T, in 1904, but declined to build any more as the smaller locomotives were superior.  In the period we are discussing, this was not an unusual phenomenon.

The London & South Western also liked tank engines and 105 of Dugald Drummond's 'M7' 0-4-4 class were built between 1897 and 1911.

The 4-4-2T was a popular passenger locomotive on many railways.  It was sometimes a tank engine version of an existing 4-4-0 type.

Particularly in South Wales, the 0-6-2T was often a tank engine equivalent of a 0-6-0 goods engine.  Other railways built larger-wheeled examples for passenger work, although the Great Western favoured the 2-6-2T.

More unusual were 4-4-0T, 4-4-4T, 2-6-0T, 4-6-0T and 0-6-4T types.  4-6-2T classes started appearing in 1910 on the London Brighton & South Coast, London & North Western and Great Central railways.  Although we think of this type as a passenger engine, the North Eastern built 20 powerful examples of the type for goods work in 1910/11.  Right at the end of our period, in 1911, the first 4-6-4T class was introduced on the London, Tilbury & Southend.

Eight-coupled tank engines were an interesting lot.  Apart from the first 11 0-8-2T engines introduced on the Great Northern for suburban passenger work, eight-coupled tank engines tended to be used for specialised goods and shunting work.  For more general goods work, the Caledonian had six 0-8-0T locomotives.  The Great Northern decided its 11 0-8-2Ts would be better employed on goods traffic and transferred the lococotives to Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, where they joined another 30 examples of the type which had been built for goods work.  By far the biggest user of the eight-coupled tank locomotive for general goods traffic was the Great Western which, from 1910 to 1923, built 215 2-8-0T engines of the '4201' class.

For specialised heavy shunting and banking duties, several types appeared.  The Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company obtained two American-built 0-8-2T locomotives in 1900.  More details of these are in the earlier discussion.  Home-built examples included the  Lancashire & Yorkshire's  five 0-8-2T engines in 1908 and the London & North Western followed in 1911 with what eventually totalled 30 0-8-2s.

The Great Central and the North Eastern both introduced large eight-coupled tank engines in 1907. Reflecting the diversity of opinion between locomotive engineers, the Great Central's was a 0-8-4T and the North Eastern's was a 4-8-0T.

As we saw in the discussion earlier, there was even a single ten-coupled tank engine, an 0-10-0WT, the Great Eastern's No. 20, Decapod.  Designed to show that steam-hauled suburban services could perform as well as a proposed electrically-worked railway into Essex, she performed well in a series of tests held between January and June 1903.  She achieved a gravity-assisted maximum speed of 55mph down Brentford Bank.  The GER enginemen must have been brave individuals.  Interest in the electric railway waned and she never ran again as a tank engine.  She was rebuilt as a 0-8-0 tender locomotive in 1906.  Not surprisingly, this lasted only until 1913.  The GER was correct to protect its suburban services – it carried 220,000 suburban passengers a day into and out of Liverpool Street.  However, the service continued to be worked exclusively by 0-6-0T locomotives until the first 0-6-2T engines began to appear in 1915.

Incidentally, Decapod was Great Britain's first ten-coupled locomotive.  Can you suggest what the second one was?

I suppose I ought to mention there was also a variety of little 0-4-0 tank engines, some with side tanks and some with saddle tanks, that were used for dock shunting and suchlike.

And, finally, the North Eastern Railway's gorgeous curiosity, Aerolite.  She was built in 1869, as a 2-2-2WT, to work the Engineer's saloon.  Side tanks were later added and she was completely rebuilt, in 1892, as a 4-2-2T.  Ten years later, she was rebuilt again, this time as a 2-2-4T.  The LNER made her class 'X1'.  She was withdrawn in 1933 and preserved - the LNER was good at that.  Surprisingly, there was also an 'X2' and two locomotives in class 'X3'.  Like Aerolite, these three 2-2-4T locomotives were of North Eastern origin for use on Officers' Saloons.

***

Time for another apology.

Sorry, I think this postington has gone on far too long.  But there are two matters I still wish to address with regard to tank engines before we move on to how we can make a locomotive's wheels go round.  So, one more post about frames and wheels to come.  Sorry!


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Cheerio

John

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 20, 2023, 09:56:02 AMIncidentally, Decapod was Great Britain's first ten-coupled locomotive.  Can you suggest what the second one was?

I believe it was the Midland Railway's 0-10-0 built in 1919 for banking trains on the Lickey incline, nicknamed "Big Bertha" or sometimes "Big Emma"

Ian

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 19, 2023, 07:39:41 PM

Quote from: nickk on December 19, 2023, 06:47:14 AMThanks all this is so interesting  :thumbsup:

Just wondering, is the welsh connection the reason 5619 an 0-6-2 designed by Mr Collett and built in Swindon, I believe, is sometimes refferred to as a taffy tank. (no offence to anyoine Welsh obviously) . Its currently looking slightly daft sporting a cow catcher, large headlight, and bell for Polar Express duties. Still the kids love it and it a great money spinner for our small local preserved railway

Thank you very much.  Yes, the '56xx' class was designed primarily for use in South Wales.  The pre-Grouping South Wales companies had come to the conclusion that the 0-6-2T was the ideal locomotive type for working in the Valleys.  After the Grouping in 1923, when these companies became part of the even greater Great Western Railway (GWR), a survey of all acquired locomotives was carried out.  There were a fair amount of South Wales 0-6-2T locomotives in poor condition - effectively they were worn out.  Many were in good condition and the GWR commenced a programme of rebuilding them with standard or modified GWR boilers.

However, the ones in poor condition were to be scrapped, which would cause a locomotive shortage.  Mr Collett arranged for the Swindon drawing office to design a new 0-6-2T, based on the Rhymney Railway 'R' class 0-6-2T.  Design and construction proceeded quickly and the first of the new class was tested in steam in December 1924.  I'm given to understand the test was not a success as, due to a design error in how the valve gear was supported, the valve spindles bent which restricted the valves' movement.

It appears an urgent re-design was carried out and new drawings were issued to provide for the necessary modifications. There is a suggestion that the dating of the drawings was such as to imply this matter had been thought about in August rather than December, 1924.  The valve motion of the class is supposed to be particularly inaccessible due to the large support bracket for the valve gear which was then provided.

Notwithstanding, the class was successful in service and 200 were built between 1924 and 1928.  Such was the urgency that 50 of these were built by Armstrong Whitworth which delivered them at five per week.

I have heard tell of another, rather less than complimentary, name for this type of engine and wonder if @Hailstone might care to repeat it on our FabulousForum.

   
Thanks again and all best wishes

John

6697 was known as the Welsh pig at Didcot and was the first steam loco that I drove 46 years ago!

Regards,

Alex

Thanks for another entertaining chapter, John.

One tiny and unimportant correction:  what became the LNER J69s ran the 'Jazz' service from the west side of Liverpool Street to Chingford and Enfield on the Cambridge line. The east side suburban on the Colchester line was a mixture of 'Gobbler' 2-4-2, and 0-4-4 tanks until the mid 30s. The N7s were not around in sufficient numbers until then.

Looking forward to the next installment. Sorry for hijacking the thread so many times, but there are so many branches on the main line of this thread!


Martyn

Quote from: icairns on December 20, 2023, 02:26:03 PM

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 20, 2023, 09:56:02 AMIncidentally, Decapod was Great Britain's first ten-coupled locomotive.  Can you suggest what the second one was?

I believe it was the Midland Railway's 0-10-0 built in 1919 for banking trains on the Lickey incline, nicknamed "Big Bertha" or sometimes "Big Emma"

Ian

That's what crossed my mind. Big Bertha (43,313 lbf) was more powerful than Decapod (38,788 lbf) but the former was a tender loco v the latter being a tank loco. At the time of its build Decapod could quite legitimately claim to be the most powerful steam loco in the world

Quote from: Papyrus on December 19, 2023, 05:28:39 PM

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 19, 2023, 04:30:53 PMThe GER gets mentioned in my next postington.  There might even be a picturingham of a blue ... engine

Ah yes, blue engines. I know 4-4-0s were several chapters ago, but I couldn't resist taking your cue to post a picture of what I, and a few others, think is the most elegant steam loco ever built*, Holden's 'Claud Hamilton'.

(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/2975-191223172455.png)

Sadly, I don't think either the UM model or the BHE kit do justice to it, but that hasn't stopped me buying two UMs.

Keep up the good work,

Cheers,

Chris

* I'm prepared to accept a counter-argument in favour of Stirling's 8ft Single...

An entertaining little clip from YouTube about Clauds : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=9IukNd6u3gQ

Hadn't realised there was a new build project to reconstruct one, although it seems to be in its very early stages at the moment.
PW

An entertaining little clip from YouTube about Clauds : 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=9IukNd6u3gQ

Hadn't realised there was a new build project to reconstruct one, although it seems to be in its very early stages at the moment.
PW



What a lovely little film, I too like Claud's  :thumbsup:




Ed

Quote from: martyn on December 20, 2023, 02:38:11 PMOne tiny and unimportant correction:  what became the LNER J69s ran the 'Jazz' service from the west side of Liverpool Street to Chingford and Enfield on the Cambridge line. The east side suburban on the Colchester line was a mixture of 'Gobbler' 2-4-2, and 0-4-4 tanks until the mid 30s. The N7s were not around in sufficient numbers until then.

Thank you very much, Martyn.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's the discussion where the really interesting things are found.

I knew the GER had 40 0-4-4T locomotives of class 'S44', later, LNER 'G4', and I wondered what they did.  I associate the railway with 0-6-0T and 2-4-2T types.  Now I know - thank you.

Incidentally, I hope we'll mention the GER class 'L77' (LNER 'N7') in a future postington.

*

By the way - an apology.  For reasons I cannot imagine, I managed to leave out the Barry Railway's 0-8-2T locomotives, built by Sharp, Stewart & Co in 1896, from the postington on tank engines.  This was an important type, the first of its kind in Britain.

Best wishes

John

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 20, 2023, 08:31:07 PM

Quote from: martyn on December 20, 2023, 02:38:11 PMOne tiny and unimportant correction:  what became the LNER J69s ran the 'Jazz' service from the west side of Liverpool Street to Chingford and Enfield on the Cambridge line. The east side suburban on the Colchester line was a mixture of 'Gobbler' 2-4-2, and 0-4-4 tanks until the mid 30s. The N7s were not around in sufficient numbers until then.

Thank you very much, Martyn.

At the risk of repeating myself, it's the discussion where the really interesting things are found.

I knew the GER had 40 0-4-4T locomotives of class 'S44', later, LNER 'G4', and I wondered what they did.  I associate the railway with 0-6-0T and 2-4-2T types.  Now I know - thank you.

Incidentally, I hope we'll mention the GER class 'L77' (LNER 'N7') in a future postington.

*

By the way - an apology.  For reasons I cannot imagine, I managed to leave out the Barry Railway's 0-8-2T locomotives, built by Sharp, Stewart & Co in 1896, from the postington on tank engines.  This was an important type, the first of its kind in Britain.

Best wishes

John

'A coarse guide to Liverpool Street steam suburban workings in 20th century'

I need to look up the details in my RCTS History of the LNER locos, but off the top of my head:
What became the G4 0-4-4s were used on the suburban services, but were not really found suitable. When the 'Jazz' services were introduced in 1920, it was timed around the J69s, but applied only to the west side suburban. Planned alterations to make a similar service on the east side were not made, possibly due to grouping? . The G4s, despite being specifically designed for the Enfield and Chingford services were not found suitable, having poor acceleration, though they remained on some such workings, and were later downgraded to carriage shunting. The east side being run with F4, F5, and F6 2-4-2s, as well as the G4s: I can't find reference to the J69s on the east side. The bigger F3s were used on longer outer suburban such as Bishops Stortford or Chelmsford, as well as longer country branches. The F3s were an example of what you have mentioned, a tank engine version of a tender loco class, in this case the E4s.

The N7s were only available in very small numbers until grouping, when new deliveries replaced the older, smaller tanks generally, being supported at odd times with small numbers of N2s. Stratford never got their hands on the full N7 class, which apparently they desired.

Later, of course, V1s, V3s and L1s arrived, and electrification or dieselisation replaced steam, but N7s remained active until the end of steam, together with the L1s. The N2s, V1s, V3s, and L1s were used on the longer outer suburban runs, not the inner services; they replaced older locos, including the F3s, D13s, and Clauds on such workings.

There were also cross-London trains from the suburbs direct to the docks so that workers did not have to go via Liverpool St and change trains.

Sorry to have gone down yet another branch.....

Thanks again for the thread, fascinating.

Martyn

Later-Note I've updated the info on the LNER tanks.

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 9


Hello Chums

Radial axles

In mid-Victorian times, the six-wheel locomotive predominated but, as we have seen, there was a desire to design tank engines with eight wheels.  This was generally supposed to lead to an overlong fixed wheelbase, especially with larger coupled wheels, which might have annoyed the Civil Engineer and some way of achieving a flexible wheelbase was deemed desirable.  The bogie had been in locomotive use since William IV's time and, as we have noted, Levi Bissell patented a single axle swivelling truck in Great Britain in May 1857.  Both the bogie and the Bissell truck, or more commonly, pony truck, were pivoted from the frames of the locomotive by one means or another.

The idea of having an axle mounted on the main frames, but with a degree of radial movement appears to have been that of a French engineer, Edmond Roy, in 1857.  His arrangement was defective and the first practical version was patented by William Bridges Adams in 1863.  Please note the 'Bridges' part of this engineer's name or we'll get confused later.

Now for the tricky part.  A radial axle doesn't simply move from side to side, whilst remaining at right-angles to the frames.  Its movement is that of an arc of a circle.  In order to achieve this, William Bridges Adams used curved sides to the axleboxes, which moved inside hornguides with a matching curve.  Attempting to decide the optimum radius for the circle, which then decided its arc, gave locomotive engineers rather a lot of fun for the next 50 years or so.

I have to admit the radial axle sounds rather Heath Robinson, but it was employed on many tank locomotives in the period under discussion.  FW Webb, of the London & North Western Railway (LNWR), designed a development of the W Bridges Adams' radial axle.  In the W Bridges Adams' radial axle, the two axleboxes were independent of each other.  The Webb design placed the axleboxes at either end of a curved steel inner casting which moved within another steel outer casting, bolted to the locomotive's frames.  Any engineers shuddering at my coarse description will recognise the use of a cannon box.  As well as on LNWR locomotives, the legions of Lancashire & Yorkshire 2-4-2T tank engines used Webb radial axles.

The original W Bridges Adams' design was still used, notably on William Adams'¹ ever-popular 4-4-2T design for the London & South Western Railway – usually called the 'Adams Radial'.  One is preserved at the Bluebell Railway where another locomotive, the London Brighton & South Coast Railway's 0-6-2T Birch Grove, also has a radial axle.


(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/6222-211223160602.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=138044)


The picturingham shows an Adams 'Radial' 0-4-2T.  Bogie at the front and radial axle at the rear.


¹ They weren't related but have caused plenty of opportunities for confusion.

*

Garstang & Knott End Railway/ Knott End Railway 2-6-0T

Quote from: martyn on December 14, 2023, 01:01:42 PM[...] Interestingly, this history of the Mogul says the first UK example was a tank for the Garstang and Knott end railway circa 1870. This is the first time I've heard of this, the GER example is usually quoted as being first. Perhaps the GER was just the first tender engine in the UK of this type.

https://locomotive.fandom.com/wiki/2-6-0

I'm very grateful for that, Martyn.  Thank you.  I hardly ever use the internet for research, so it was an interesting experience for me.

I didn't notice any references given in the article and looked elsewhere on the internet.  The 'Wikipedia' website has an article which is noticeably similar to the one you kindly brought to my attention.  It quotes references and the one for the 'circa 1870' 2-6-0T is Bertram Baxter, British Locomotive Catalogue 1825–1923, Moorland, 1977, p. 30.

As luck would have it, I don't have this book (I'm going to try to obtain a copy, though).

However, EL Ahrons' The British Steam Railway Locomotive 1825-1925, Locomotive Publishing Co., London, 1927, makes no mention of this locomotive.  Perhaps Mr Ahrons overlooked it, but that would not have been typical of him.  The book, published posthumously, was based on his series of articles for The Engineer, commissioned in celebration of the railway centenary in 1925. Perhaps such an important omission would have been noted in the correspondence columns of the magazine and corrected by the three editors of the book.

I also consulted John Scott-Morgan's British Independent Light Railways, David & Charles, Newton Abbot, 1980.  This fascinating book has a chapter on the Garstang & Knott End Railway/Knott End Railway.  The railway opened between Garstang and Pilling in 1870 and appears to have been worked by two successive 0-4-0ST locomotives until 1875 when a 0-6-0ST called Farmers Friend was purchased for the line.  The remaining 0-4-0ST was replaced by another 0-6-0ST called Hope in 1883.

Again, no mention of a 2-6-0T 'circa 1870'.

What are we to make of this?  Without seeing the reference, it is difficult to say. Eventually the line got to Knott End by means of an extension from Pilling, operated by the Knott End Railway, in 1908.

But, the fascinating story doesn't end there.  You see, both Messrs Ahrons and Scott-Morgan mention that the railways did have a 2-6-0T locomotive.  She was Blackpool, built by Manning Wardle & Co. in 1909.  Mr Scott-Morgan describes her as, '... a large and unusual machine for a light railway'.  The date of 1909 is of special interest, given the extension opened the previous year.  Incidentally, Manning Wardle also delivered a 0-6-0T, named Knott End, in 1908.  The locomotives and rolling stock were pooled between the companies and ran on both sections of the line.

The Garstang & Knott End and the Knott End railways were absorbed by the LMS in the 1923 Grouping and Blackpool was scrapped in 1925 as LMS No. 11303.

*

Yet another apology!

When I first thought it might be a jolly jape to attempt to write this series, I assumed it would run to four or five parts.  Clearly, I'm greatly in need of a stern editor.  I decided to start with the wheels, then move on to what makes the wheels turn and finally the boiler.  Maybe concluding with a look at recent developments - I take these as being from 1912 onwards.

My first outline drafts regarding what makes the wheels go round keep mentioning steam, so please forget what has been advertised.  We'll discuss boilers next.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!   

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Tickety-tonk

John

Please don't edit, John, I'm enjoying this thread a lot-even though I keep sending it down a branch!

The Garstang and Knott End 2-6-0T; I think the webpage entry is a bit cross threaded, as it goes on to say the first examples in the UK were the GER Moguls-which is what I've always seen elsewhere in other articles.

Martyn

Quote from: Train Waiting on December 22, 2023, 01:56:41 PMI have to admit the radial axle sounds rather Heath Robinson, but it was employed on many tank locomotives in the period under discussion.

It was also employed on many larger and later locos too. The Cartazzi Axle, a variation of the Adams Radial Axle, was used as the trailing axle on all (I think) of Gresley's pacifics as well as his P1s & P2s and as the leading trailing axle on the W1 Hush-Hush. The trailing trailing axle on the latter was a normal Bissel truck, making it, technically, a 4-6-2-2 rather than a 4-6-4 Baltic.

The principle differences were that the Adams/Webb radial axles were true radials with curved hornguides/axleboxes and a spring arrangement to restore the axle to the centre position on straight track, whereas the Cartazzi has shorter, straight (but angled) hornguides/axleboxes, since that was easier to machine, and an arrangement of horizontal wedges such that the weight of the loco provided the necessary force to centre the axle.

A Radial truck was used on all the large GW prairie tanks, the 56xx tanks and I believe the 72xx tanks

Regards,

Alex

Purely by coincidence, friends bought me a Will's cigarette picture card album for Christmas. I think one or two are missing.

However, two of the cards give the names of loco wheel formations, with answers on the back, and another is lamp codes. Two more are 'How the vacuum brake works' and 'how the Westinghouse brake works'.




(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/138/447-251223114149.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=138135)

Martyn

Nice gift, Martyn. Does it explain on the back of each card what the letters denote?

Quote from: Newportnobby on December 25, 2023, 11:46:51 AMNice gift, Martyn. Does it explain on the back of each card what the letters denote?

Yes, Mick.

Each card has an explanation on the back. There are a number of subjects; it's not dated, but wagon liveries appear to be the pre-1935 type, and illustrated locos are in Big 4 liveries.

I'll need to go through it a bit more thoroughly!

Martyn