Quote from: port perran on April 16, 2025, 03:19:23 PMTalking of old rockers......an unlikely pairing maybe :

How did I miss this post? Thankfully @Newportnobby pointed me in the right direction and thanks to @port perran for posting it. A cringeworthy track but some really nice guitar work from Mr Gilmour.


I must pay more attention in future.

deleted - link to my Google photos doesn't work

Quote from: Keith Bingham on April 28, 2025, 11:19:07 AMI wonder why it is the bogies on my N-gauge 4-6-2 and 2-6-0 locos quite often jump off the track, anywhere, not  just on pointwork. This applies to all manufacturers, with only Union Mills locos the exception. Perhaps because Union Mills locos are heavier which makes them such good runners. I regret Union Mills are no longer in production.

Most likely causes are either track issues - obstructions (such as ballast as suggested) or poor joints; or operational - going too fast around too sharp curves...

The reason for Union Mills being more tolerant of track issues is not the weight as such, but in the way that the front bogies are mounted which is closer to the prototype and means the bogie is carrying some of the weight of the loco rather than just being along for the ride on the end of a loose wavy bar as most models have (a compromise which helps to get around overly tight trainset curves)...

I've often found stray ballast to be the culprit, especially with points.  Failing that I suggest you check back-to-backs and baseboard joins. You shouldn't have any problems with decent tracklaying.

hi     my  norton   tried  to  auto  renew   for  £89.99      i  canceled  it  and  purchased  exactley  same  thing  on  amazon   ( ok  a  code )  but  for  only  £13.99    ...  the  same  bloody  thing   like  for  like

  this  was  over  10  weeks  ago   

  im  happy

    paul

My Norton antivirus is up for renewal in June and after a fair bit of research I had decided to ditch it as Microsoft defender has come on leaps and bounds and should be sufficient for the type of use my laptop gets.

Why post in the angry thread you may ask? Yesterday Norton took £89.99 from my account as an auto renewal. First up I am very confident I had auto renew turned off but more importantly I have had no email about renewal and why take it over 6 weeks before it is due?

After negotiating their chatbot I finally managed to have an online chat with India.

Apparently they take it early to ensure I don't miss out on their protection if there is a problem with renewal. Yeah right!

After asking for a refund (which will take up to 10 days apparently, they must use carrier pigeons) they could suddenly give me a 20% discount on my renewal which is one of my pet hates. So you thought you'd try to sting me for a higher premium when a lower one was available. No thanks.

Anyhow, a refund is on its way so that's the end of this sorry story or is it?

Nope, just received an email from them offering me the same cover for just £29.99 now. What a bunch of crooks!

Thanks again, John, for your excellent and informative postingam

Regarding the GCR compound Atlantics, as stated, when both classes (compound and simple, C5 and C4,) were saturated, that the compounds were slightly more economic. Records kept at their heyday shed, Leicester, showed that after superheating of both types, the compounds were using slightly more coal than the simples. At Leicester they were used on London expresses and had a very good reliability record.

As stated by John, superheating was found to be an easier way to economies, in coal and water, in UK conditions than compounding. Compounds seemingly also had higher building and maintenence costs than simples, and this was another factor against them.

Martyn

Some good news from Papyrus Corner (I won't trouble you with the less good news....). Blanche's laptop is working again after the repairman kept it on charge for a few hours. No other problem, so no charge. And he was able to supply me with a new charger lead for my machine so there'll be dancing on the streets tonight.

Cheers,

Chris

I wonder why it is the bogies on my N-gauge 4-6-2 and 2-6-0 locos quite often jump off the track, anywhere, not  just on pointwork. This applies to all manufacturers, with only Union Mills locos the exception. Perhaps because Union Mills locos are heavier which makes them such good runners. I regret Union Mills are no longer in production.

A Coarse Guide to the Steam Locomotive for 'N' Gauge Modellers - Part 91


Hello Chums

Compounding - A Simple Approach -

'Second Compound Era' from 1890 to 1922 - Edwardian Compounds:

We concluded the previous part with SW Johnson retiring as Locomotive Superintendent of the Midland at the end of 1903. His five recently-introduced three-cylinder compounds performed particularly well, especially on the Settle-Carlisle line. These compounds used the WM Smith system and Mr Smith's son, John Smith, had risen to be the Midland's Chief Draughtsman at its Derby Works.

The Midland had what would now be called a succession plan in place. Richard M Deeley, Derby Works Manager, had been appointed Assistant Locomotive Superintendent and succeeded Mr Johnson in the post as of 1 January 1904. Cecil W Paget, whom we met earlier in connection with the Paget locomotive, was promoted from Assistant Works Manager to Works Manager. Henry (later, Sir Henry) Fowler became Assistant Works Manager. John Smith remained Chief Draughtsman with James Anderson as Assistant Chief Draughtsman.

Such was the success of Mr Johnson's compounds that Mr Deeley set to work to design an improved version. This was the famous Deeley 'Midland Compound' class. The first, No. 1000, later renumbered as No. 1005, appeared in 1905. Fortunately, she survives and can be seen and enjoyed in glorious Midland crimson lake, once again as No. 1000.




[The first of Mr Deeley's 'Midland Compounds', No. 1000, as built in 1905.]


Mr Deeley was a scientifically-minded engineer and increased the boiler pressure to 220 psi - as we have seen, that was a high figure for the time. He also devised his own pattern of regulator, where the engine worked as a semi-compound, with high pressure steam admitted to the two LP cylinders at the initial opening of the regulator. When the regulator was opened further, the live steam supply to the LP cylinders was cut off automatically. To return to semi-compound working, while running, the regulator had to first be fully closed, then re-opened.

This arrangement simplified the working of the engine, but did not permit the flexibility of the 'reinforced compound working' which Mr Smith had incorporated on NER No. 1619 and had been included on the five Johnson compounds.

A total of forty of the Deeley compounds were built and the five Johnson compounds were modified to conform to the modified design.

Mr Deeley's compounds were successful engines and became synonymous with the Midland Railway. We'll return to them later.

**

Also in 1905, in December, appeared Great Britain's largest compounds thus far. On a railway which, up to now, hadn't been involved with our compound story - the Great Central. Gorton Works built two Class '8D' three-cylinder, WM Smith-system compound versions of John Robinson's two-cylinder Great Central 'Atlantic'. Another pair were built in December 1906. These were GCR Class '8E'. All four were classified as 'C5' by the LNER. All carried names, unlike the two-cylinder simple-expansion 'Atlantics'.

Fascinating fact: John Smith left the Midland in August 1906 to take up the appointment of Works Manager at Gorton.

In 1908, Mr Robinson reported that the compound 'Atlantics' were slightly lighter on coal - around 2-2 1/2 lbs per mile - than the simple-expansion two-cylinder 'Atlantics'. Presumably, this saving was insufficient for compound locomotives to be perpetuated on the Great Central. It's that cost/benefit factor, much discussed earlier, in action again. Although the four compounds were built so that they could be fairly easily converted to the standard type, this was not done and the final one in service was withdrawn in 1947, being, incidentally, the LNER's last compound locomotive.

**

Let's now return to WM Smith, still Chief Draughtsman on the NER. One might have thought, with his three-cylinder system of compounding being introduced on other railways, he would have been developing and promoting it with gusto.

His son, John Smith, had accompanied the Midland's 4-2-2. No. 2601 Princess of Wales to the Paris Exhibition in 1900. There he saw the first de Glehn compound 4-4-2 for the Nord and was given authority to ride on the footplate of its sister engine. He was most impressed and reported back to his father.

WM Smith immediately turned his attention to four-cylinder compounds and obtained two patents. What then followed is extraordinary and reflects well on Wilson Worsdell. Mr Smith was given authority to design and build two compound 'Atlantics', not with his three-cylinder system but with four cylinders.  Design was a protracted affair, the drawings being entered in the Gateshead Drawing Register between March 1903 and June 1905.

There appears to have been an unfortunate reason for this. Wilson Worsdell's two-cylinder simple-expansion 'V' Class 4-4-2 entered service in November 1903. Mr Smith's was experiencing poor health and was absent from work for an extended period when the 'Atlantic' was being designed. Consequently, the design work was overseen by George Heppell, Mr Smith's deputy. On his return, Mr Smith was critical of the 'V' class - probably unfairly, these were excellent locomotives - and Mr Heppell was less than pleased by this. Which meant he declined to became involved with the design of Mr Smith's compound 'Atlantic'.

The pair of compounds, classified '4CC', entered service in mid-1906. One had Walschaerts valve gear and the other had Stephenson link motion. Uniquely, for the NER, they had Belpaire fireboxes. Perhaps this was as a result of John Smith's experience of these on the Midland.

The convention is locomotive types are attributed to the Locomotive Superintendent or Chief Mechanical Engineer, even if they had little or nothing to do with the design. However, the two '4CC' 'Atlantics' were openly credited to Mr Smith. EL Ahrons expressed it delicately, 'Two 4-4-2 four-cylinder express engines were built at Gateshead Works of the NER to WM Smith's design under W Worsdell's supervision'¹

Mr Smith died in harness in 1906, aged 64.

The two compound 'Atlantics' performed well and were subject to close monitoring from  October 1906 to September 1907. No. 731, with Walschaerts valve gear, proved to be more economical than No. 730, fitted with Stephenson link motion. The average coal consumption per train mile was 39.8 lbs and 42.75 lbs respectively.

The ten Class 'V' two-cylinder simple-expansion 'Atlantics' were also monitored and their average coal consumption per train mile was 45.95 lbs. The best figure for the class was 42.7 lbs.

It is worth mentioning that the 'V' class had been built in 1903/4 and their results would have included engines fresh from works and those overdue for general repair. The two compounds were new engines.

As such, whilst the compounds were shown to be more economical, there wasn't that much in it, even before allowing for the greater complexity and cost of four-cylinder compound locomotives. However, the NER authorised the construction of a further ten 'CC4' locomotives, with Walschaerts valve gear, in December 1907. As @martyn helpfully mentioned in Reply 470, it is understood the executers of the late WM Smith's estate wanted royalty payments for the use of Mr Smith's patents. This was an outrageous position, as the NER had given Mr Smith a great deal of support to pursue his interest in compounding.

Unsurprisingly, the NER considered this unacceptable and the batch of ten wasn't built. Ten more 'V' Class 'Atlantics' were built in 1910.




[NER compound 'Atlantic' No. 730. A good-looking engine.]


Mr Smith left an important legacy on the NER as Vincent (later, Sir Vincent) Raven succeeded Wilson Worsdell as from 1 June 1910. Following his retirement, Wilson Worsdell was retained as Consulting Mechanical Engineer until 31 December 1911. As we saw earlier in this remarkably brief mini-series, Sir Vincent was convinced of the benefits of three-cylinder propulsion. In 1925, after his retirement, he spoke at the Newcastle meeting of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and told the meeting he had been convinced of the merits of three-cylinders by the locomotive modified by WM Smith - No. 1619 that we discussed earlier.

You might recall I commenced this section by discussing the concept of cost and benefit, using, of course, pints of fine, foaming ale and the nice big barmaid. Then we moved to discussing compounding. Hopefully, you'll have seen a pattern emerge from the examples I used. I think it's fair to say that compound locomotives were, as Martyn once mentioned to me, efficient but not economic in the British context.

By 1910, superheating was being generally accepted as the way to improve performance and cut the coal bill. One railway persevered with compounds and we'll briefly discuss these in the next part - the last in this section.     


¹EL Ahrons, The British Steam Railway Locomotive 1825-1925, Locomotive Publishing Company, London, 1927, Page 326.


'N' Gauge is Such Fun!

Many thanks for looking and all best wishes.

Cheerie-bye

John