Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,464 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Probably still the best part of two years before Hornby have it on sale, but what the EP shows and what is described of the Turbomotive all suggests a good job. The sound effects crowd are going to be disappointed though, because by contemporary report it was rather quiet...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,037 Posts
Did you notice the phrase '2023 range' in the article ;)

David
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,464 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
...As with the GT3, the Turbomotive does look very strange w/o any outside valve gear!
It might have looked much stranger had Stanier's team not been constrained by using the Princess design as a basis and finding a way to bolt on the turbine equipment in the voids left by removing the reciprocating engine gear. The driven wheels didn't need to be 6'6" diameter, and it would have been positively advantageous had they been much smaller, like 3' diameter.

Turbines run fast and halving the wheel diameter halves the reduction ratio required: one of the problems of the 'turbo' was heating in the reduction gearbox; if the work it has to do is halved, there's less traction energy absorbed and thus less heating, and increased traction power output.
Leave the boiler pitched at the standard height, and now there's a lot of airspace down to the frames for the smaller wheels, less constraint on turbine location and equipment layout.
Lighter wheelsets and frames too, and those driven wheels could be in bogies with outside bearings and a central shaft drive, more weight reduction by loss of coupling rods and balance weights, which also reduces suspension loads.

Not suggesting any of the above would have been easy, but it is logical development on an optimisation path. This way the turbomotive would have looked very different, as a glance at the Ljungtrom designs for Swedish Railway use quickly confirms. These were a success.




Did you notice the phrase '2023 range' in the article
I feel we are all aware that delays in getting the goods out of China are with us for the immediately forseeable future. Out by last quarter 2023 would be a fair result, slipping into 2024 quite possible, on past performance.

My attitude is that I waited half my likely lifetime to see RTR OO being made to standards long established as 'basic expectation' in adult oriented HO product. What's a year or two?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
8,464 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I rather liked the rebuilt version Princess Anne shame it got wrecked so soon after rebuild...
Let the muttering commence.

The Duchess on the up train was repaired, this after first demolishing the rear of the standing commuter train, and then being hit by the 6P piloting 'Princess Anne' working the down express that unavoidably ran into the wreckage. The Princess Anne boiler was repaired, and went into the Princess class boiler pool.

Why not return Princess Anne to service? It had only suffered a single collision, the boiler survived, and the 6P as the pilot engine had taken the worst of the impact. Theories abound:
Possibly Princess Anne was not proving a great success? Crews accustomed to the Duchess with its much superior boiler output may have found it 'difficult'. Maybe it had a poor record for availability and/or timekeeping in service? Possibly its non-standard hybrid nature led to maintenance problems?
Or was it that this event provided Riddles the opportunity to design and build a replacement BR standard 8P to restore the WCML roster to fifty pacifics? After all, you do not qualify as a true great among the UK's C20th steam loco designers unless you have an 8P pacific design to your name, and he wouldn't have much fancied the alphabetic end of the second rank slot with Churchward, Collett, Ivatt, Maunsell and Raven.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
It was my understanding that Riddles handed over the development of the last 8P design to Freddy Harrison.

From the Ashes to a 21st Century Duke - The Duke

I met Freddy when he was in his eighties and, following a couple of quite lengthy discussions was left in no doubt as to his part in the design and build of the Duke.
I remember a man of deep intellect with some interesting insight into the first 20 years of British Railways. He considered his greatest acheivments being the development of the freightliner and Merry-go-round coal workings. I was surprised that as CME from 1958 to 1966 he was so relaxed about the Diesel Hydraulic v Diesel Electric debate; he just said that Swindon remained very independent so I just let them get on with it, following the example of Roland Bond.

On the subject of the Duke he was aware of the draughting issue.

Best regards .................... Greyvoices (alias John)
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top