Hornby Railroad Black 5

That can't be right. In one of my books there's a picture of a lashup of

9 F-units, all controlled as one. So that would be a B-B+B-B+B-B+B-B+B-B+B-B+B-B+B-B+B-B then!

Merry Christmas

Oh, the irony.

Are you lying about the books, too? Or do you reserve that epithet for others you disagree with.

MBQ

Such double locos were relatively common on European narrow gauge about a century ago. They were in deed classed as 0-6-0+0-6-0s. (or C+C or 0-3-0+0-3-0s) I mean Locos. (or more properly locomotives)

F3/7/9 units would be Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo' 8^)

The problem here is that the original Whytes system was too basic and made no allowance for numerous possibilities - such as rigid carrying axles vs those mounted on separate pivoted frames. Take for example an 1848 Baldwin

0-6-0 where the forward pair of axles was mounted on an equalized frame capable of parallelogram plan deformation around a center pivot! Mechanical coupling of loco and tender wheels was attempted by numerous European designers in the 1800s. (the last examples of those, being "Engerths", are not long gone)

Greg.P.

: >

: > I think you'll find that you meant the 'engine' (the frames, : > cylinders, motion and driving axle(s) form the 'engine' of a : > steam locomotive), thus the description used by Simon is correct : > and is why Garratt and Malletts classes etc. use the " + " : > description for their wheel arrangements, two engines sharing a : > common power source (boiler). One could have - theoretically, I : > think - coupled two auto fitted locomotives together via their : > auto control gear and driven both locos from the one cab (or : > indeed the driving coach cab), in doing so you would not have : > created a new class of locomotive (such as a GWR

0-4-2+0-4-2), : > just a 'double headed' train! : >

: : Such double locos were relatively common on European narrow gauge : about a century ago. They were in deed classed as 0-6-0+0-6-0s. : (or C+C or 0-3-0+0-3-0s) : I mean Locos. (or more properly locomotives)

Yes, articulated ENGINES, not separate locos working as one (otherwise you will have no problem in citing a class, with suitable references).

Not sure if it was too basic, managed to describe with great simplicity the vast majority of British steam locos, which is what we wanted and still want. When it comes to the more esoteric British locos, they tend to be either one (or one class) of a kind, and hence either well known or so infrequently encountered that their class name can be used. Oh heck, am I being insular again. :-)

Cheers, Simon

Jerry, on this occassion I'll admit I am in the wrong in as much as I read about railways from around the world, not just about the UK. The original Whytes notation was very basic and has been considerably expanded upon in many countries where it had proven to be inadequate. I certainly could cite examples of locomotives built as 0-6-0+0-6-0s with controls of both locos interlinked, including examples built in the UK for export. I've already cited the SBB Ae8/14 as an example and I could further cite a pair of NZR F Class locos built as a single unit ay Avonside in the late 1870s/ early 1880s.

From about the time Stephenson started exporting locomotives British steam locos stopped being insular :-) From early on there were railway publications (eg Engineering socs) where the latest developments were discussed, so insularity wasn't really practical. We started this discussion in regards to the trailing carrying axle of Gresly Pacifics, and I'm still wondering if that axle was actually carried on a truck or whether it was carried within rigid framing? "Truck" being a small separate frame pivoted from the main-frame, to allow independant sideways movement. (none of the books in my collection properly illustrates that part of the locos)

Greg.P.

What about a "radial truck" as used on the GWR 56xx and 66xx class

0-6-2Ts? This was not a small separate frame pivoted from the mainframe, but fif allow independent sideways movement.

The L&YR called the end axles of it's 2-4-2T "radial axles". The axle boxes had curved fore and aft outer edges and slid between the axle box irons. (sorry to keep returning to that loco as my example but I'm building one from scratch :-)

IIRC it was carried on Cartazzi slides within axleboxes fixed to the rear frames, rather than any form of pivoted truck. The W1 had both, of course...

Tim

[ re the trailing carrying axle of Gresely Pacifics ]

: : IIRC it was carried on Cartazzi slides within axleboxes fixed to the : rear frames, rather than any form of pivoted truck. The W1 had both, : of course... :

AIUI it's still called a truck as it's not a fixed (ridged) axle.

We're getting somewhat pedantic here, but a "truck" is a pivoted frame holding a carrying axle. Presumably the Cartazzi slides provide a notional pivot point ahead of the carrying axle so causing it to behave as a truck. We might have to agree to differ.

Regards, Greg.P.

: > [ re the trailing carrying axle of Gresely Pacifics ] : >

: > : : > : IIRC it was carried on Cartazzi slides within axleboxes fixed : > to the : > : rear frames, rather than any form of pivoted truck. The W1 had : > both, : > : of course... : > : : >

: > AIUI it's still called a truck as it's not a fixed (ridged) axle. : >

: : We're getting somewhat pedantic here, but a "truck" is a pivoted : frame holding a carrying axle. Presumably the Cartazzi slides : provide a notional pivot point ahead of the carrying axle : so causing it to behave as a truck.

But that is the point, it does allow the said trailing axle to 'pivot', just not in the most usual way, and in any case 'pivoting' is the least important aspect for any leading or trailing truck on a locomotive, in fact the last thing they actually should to do is 'pivot', once they are forced to do that they have not done their primary (design) task well or at all...

: We might have to agree to differ. :

No, you just need to find a clue!

Jerry:- I have been scratch-building model locos since 1963. Kit building commercially since about 1980. My major modelling theme has been locos running on mountainous routes. I'm a member of several railway presevation groups. I've been involved in the restoration of a number of steam locos. A close aquaintance was the mechanical engineer for NZR in the last days of steam through the early/middle Diesel years.

I don't know everything, but you need to think hard before accusing me of knowing nothing.

Regards, Greg.P.

: : I don't know everything, but you need to think hard before : accusing me of knowing nothing. :

Until I see proof that you know anything more than how to sweep up and make tea I will carry on holding my opinion...

Sorry to say that in my time in railway preservation, in my time in model engineering, in my time in model railways and in my professional career I have come across plenty of arrogant idiots like you, those that like to have it believed that they know all when in reality they know nothing, they can sure talk a good story but when it comes down to hard facts and logic their true worthlessness comes flying into the room to join them...

I was the one quoting a long ago book by an established author - you're the one claiming to be in possession of "facts" in regards to a design where no "facts" regarding the design were recorded. That puts _you_ firmly in the "plenty of arrogant idiots

Regards, Greg.P.

: : I was the one quoting a book by an established author -

That you have failed/refuse to cite....

I've failed so far - it's the Christmas/New Year season and mid-summer. I haven't had time to re-read my library.

Greg.P.