We got them in stock yesterday and they are definitely loco dive, although I
think the tender is a demotorised former tender drive jobbie.
Why on earth they've re-used the number 5112 is anyone's guess; that was the
number used on many of the tender drive versions. It must reduce potential
The loco still looks an abortion, but at least it runs nicely - far better
than the old tender drive models.
Pedantry and semantics demand that I tell you that 'two wheels do not a
bogie make' - this two wheeled trailing supporter of many a firebox is
called a 'pony truck'. We may have to come up with a revised name now that
it doesn't actually swivel. Suggestions?
I was not much enthused by this innovation by Hornby till I saw what an
improvement in appearance was possible, and on my curves (4ft 6in and
bigger) it makes not a whit of difference. Pity it took so long for this
penny to drop- both for me and Hornby.
: >> The latest Princess Coronations appear to have the fixed
: >> John.
: > Pedantry and semantics demand that I tell you that 'two
wheels do not a
: > bogie make' - this two wheeled trailing supporter of many a
: > called a 'pony truck'. We may have to come up with a revised
: > that
: > it doesn't actually swivel. Suggestions?
: It's a "fixed carrying axle".
Surely that would make the loco a "4-6-2-0", think about it...
What Hornby are doing with their models is some what similar to
how Gresely engineered his Pacific's - allowing an element of
*axle* side movement via the axlebox or horn-guides design,
rather than the axle moving with the bogie frame - and it's
simply known as a "trailing truck".
Not absolutely sure on this, but think 4-6-2-0 would imply that both the '6
& 2' were powered.
There's one odd-ball example which contradicts that. It's the Gresley W1
which is generally referred to as a 4-6-4, but some learned scholars say
it's really a 4-6-2-2 as the four carrying wheels under the cab are not
connected in a conventional bogie.
Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated loco, albeit an
unusual arrangement for such a loco.
Should check but thought you could have a 4-2-2-2 where the middle 2's are
fixed carrying wheels of same size but not coupled. Think there were some on
either LNWR or Midland which then had these 2nd pair coupled to give a 4-4-2
No. Because they are not fully independent power units. The rear unit
on a Mallet is rigid, with the front unit hinged off it. Sometimes
described as semi-articulated
When Whyte developed his notation in 1900 wheel arrangements were't as
complicated as they later became.
Wikipedia has a web page but it is from an American perspective,
especially the nicknames given to the various arrangements.
That depends on whose notation you are using!
" + " is normally used to indicate two seperate
locomotive units permanently coupled together.
examples might be the Swiss Ae 8/14 where two
single cab 7 axle (4 driving axle) are coupled
together. One might call an 0-6-0 with a Stirling
driven tender an 0-6+6-0. (or 0-6-0+0-6-0)
In most of Europe trucks and bogies are designated
with a ' to show a separate frame: eg
- 4'2 0 for a leading bogie.
- 4 2 0 for a Crampton with the carrying wheels
on the main frame.
: Yes, as in 4-8-8-4, it implies a duplex or articulated
: loco, albeit an unusual arrangement for such a loco.
WRONG again MBQ, you obviously have never heard of the 4-2-2-0
Drummonds of the LSWR have you...
What usually indicates an articulated locomotive is either class,
maker (designer) or nickname, NOT wheel arrangement.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.