Gaps in the range

[LCDR]

The steam turbine (and the subsequent gas turbine) as applied to rail never really caught on anywhere in the world. Some work was done in the US and in Sweden, but these were never proliferated, and the Gas Turbine also had a very unfortunate history.

 

I remember GT3 which was a very strange concept, and which only lasted a few years, and the last of the breed APT-E which was partially successful, but only experimental.

 

I regret never seeing 6202, 18000 and 18100 but 6202 was converted to conventional

 

form when I was 4 and the two gas turbines were more often in works than working trains.

 

Today the future is electric, so I don't anticipate any further turbine locomotive trials. In truth our railways ARE powered by steam turbines, but the turbines

 

are located in big power stations and the trains supplied via the National Grid.

 

 

fazy said:

 

Torbomotive was built for mid speed stopping trains with low coal/water consumption also to reduce the wear on the locomotive and the tracks

 

with the hammer blow taken out of the equation all of which she achieved. if it had not been for the war it is most likely that the turbine would have become common place. the turbines needed highly skill technicians to keep them running, and parts from the

 

abroad but with the war she was run with out the care needed and damage to the turbines a cured and after the war the cost where dame to much and she became princess Anne.

 

the turbine torque is much higher at the set RPM then that of a piston engine

 

and builds more gently giving less ware on both track and engine

[walkingthedog]

the ferret said:

iv>I remember the pit of Hell in which the Turbomotive was spawned. It was "Princess Anne" before that, a beautiful Pacific designed by Sir William Stanier but the shattered wreck that was pulled from the wreckage of the

terrible Harrow and Wealdstone accident of the 8th of October 1952 was rebuilt as the experimental steam turbine powered Turbomotive. It was not a success. This is because a steam turbine is like a diesel or petrol engine. It makes its power by revving. The

conventional steam loco on the other hand attains maximum torque at the instant of starting. It is unbeatable.

At the time the Harrow and Wealdstone accident was declared the worst accident ever. It was worse than the train that caught fire at Quintinshill

on the 22nd of May 1915. At Harrow and Wealdstone three crowded trains were involved, 122 persons died and the station was almost totally destroyed.

Think you were looking in the wrong pit ferret. Turbomotive was built in 1935 then converted

to an ordinary steam loco Princess Anne that was written off after a couple of months in 1952 at Harrow and Wealdstone.

[81F]

Always being one for the unusual I've always wanted a Turbomotive, but when looking at Princess Arthur, I just haven't got the heart to take a razor saw to her!

 

Looking at the princess I feel that all Hornby would need to produce would be a new

 

body shell. A faring for the turbines in place of cylinders (assuming they couldn't incorporate this into the body and a new set of central driving wheels (the crank pin is longer on the reciprocating locos)

 

I think this would be a much easier "one

 

off" than GWR 111, of course I'd also have to get the Bear if they ever did one!

[the ferret]

OK WTD I got that one wrong. But the fact remains that I was nearly fourteen years old at the time of the Harrow and Wealdstone accident.

 

It was quite diabolical.

 

At this point the main line is in four tracks. The two fast lines up and down

 

are adjacent to each other with the slow lines on the outside of the formation. Due to engineering work the UP slow had been closed and a stopping train had to be switched to the fast line and was thus stationary in Harrow and Wealdstone Station. A following

 

UP express failed to observe a distant signal and two subsequent STOP signals. The 500 ton express was running late at 60 mph and ran into the back of the stationary train that was composed of old wooden non-corridor coaches. The last three coaches were compressed

 

into the length of one coach.

 

The engine of the express fell on to its side afoul of the DOWN fast line. The signalman slammed all levers to danger but it was too late. He was forced to watch what happened next.

 

The DOWN Liverpool express hauled

 

by Princess Anne struck the engine of the UP express as it lay across the path of Princess Anne.

 

Wreckage was piled 40 or 50 feet high, the station was totally destroyed and 122 people lost their lives with an enormous list of injured.

 

At this

 

time the Great Western Railway had been successfully operating "Automatic Train Control" for forty-seven years. On the GWR such an accident could not possibly have happened.

 

The BR(LMR) set about developing a system of crash protection that would be

 

even better than the GWR system. It was many years being developed and in the meantime there were more serious accidents. In 1953 at Penmaenmawr in North Wales a light engine was held awaiting clearance to go on to a branch line.

 

The signalman forgot

 

it was there and released an Anglesey express that struck the light engine at 60 mph. Although there wasn't as high a death toll as at H & W, the train and light loco were completely destroyed.

 

It took around thirty years before "Automatic Train Protection"

 

finally began to be installed throughout the British Railways system.

 

I don't believe that it is everywhere in Britain even today.

 

The London Underground and Tube systems probably have the best equipment but accidents do still happen. The Moorgate

 

disaster was the worst and happened in the 1970s.

 

 

[walkingthedog]

I was only 3 ferret so only know what I have read. I know PP Said it was the worse peacetime crash but surely it must have been the worse crash regarding locos. Like I said earlier the loco they rebuilt looked the worse of the lot.

 

An old boss of

 

mine had a layout before he moved away and I remember going to see it about 10 years ago and he had Princess Anne and Turbomotive on the up and down line. He asked me what was was wrong with the two locos and for some reason I got it right much to his annoyance.

[the ferret]

Princess Anne to Turbomotive was not an isolated case. Other locos were severely damaged and rebuilt. Those that were scrapped are relatively few and far between. Two stand out in my mind.

 

30688 was a Class 700 'Black Motor' 0-6-0 goods engine.

 

It was destroyed in a head-on collision at Staines with an UP Windsor e.m.u. in August 1957. Because the blow to the loco was at one corner, its frames were twisted out of shape and it was subsequently cut up at Eastleigh Works. It was the first of the very

 

useful Class 700 0-6-0 goods engines to be taken out of service.

 

60006 was an LNER class A4 named Sir Ralph Wedgwood. It was damaged beyond repair in an air raid in World War 2. The name was that of a director of the company and was transferred to another

 

A4 that had carried the 'Herring Gull' nameplate.

 

 

[LCDR]

4469 'Sir Ralph Wedgewood' was destroyed beyond repair on 29th April 1942, in York locomotive depot and if you go to the NRM there is a plaque on the floor on the spot where it occured commemorating this event.

Because the director's names were considered

 

more important, 4466 'Herring Gull' lost her name and received 'Sir Ralph Wedgewood' instead. Under the 1946 re-numbering 4466 became 6, and then in 1948 BR added 60000 to it to become 60006.

4469 was originally 'Gadwall' befofe 'Sir Ralph Wedgewood'.

If

 

the Germans hadn't destroyed 4469 then it is possible that 'Mallard' would have been 60023 under BR numbering, and 'Flying Scotsman' 60104!

 

 

the ferret said:

 

 

60006 was an LNER class A4 named Sir Ralph Wedgwood. It was damaged beyond

 

repair in an air raid in World War 2. The name was that of a director of the company and was transferred to another A4 that had carried the 'Herring Gull' nameplate.

 

[the ferret]

Sorry, folks, have got a bit off-topic. Am surprised that I have not been jumped on by WTD and PP for that and for being morbid!!

 

So may I offer some more missing bits.

 

We have from various directions a number of different GWR stocks. There

 

is the railroad early Collett stock, the Centenary stock and the Hawksworth stock but apart from a rather poor example of Early Collett, there are no suitable Restaurant Cars. I have a rake of very nice 1938 Collett 'Sunshine' stock coaches. To my way of thinking

 

they look really good behind a Castle or a Hall or a King. But they need a Restaurant Car. To use an early Collett restaurant car would be a travesty. So I am gathering the parts to make a kit-built Collett 70 foot Restaurant Car. I just hope I can make a

 

nice job of it.

 

In a just-previous post I mentioned the Class 700 Drummond 'Black Motor' 0-6-0. Dugald Drummond was a 'Guid Scot'. He anticipated George Churchward of the Great Western by nearly ten years. Both men realised that they should build a

 

standard series of locomotives using, where possible, parts that were interchangeable between the classes. These would include wheels, motion, smokebox, boiler and cab. Drummond's idea was to run the LSWR with just three standard classes. These would be:-

 

Class

 

M7 0-4-4T Suburban passenger tank engine and general maid-of-all-work.

 

Class T9 4-4-0 Express Passenger locomotive

 

Class 700 0-6-0 Goods engine

 

Hornby make the first two and very excellent models they are too. So why not the goods loco?

 

Every layout needs a 0-6-0 goods engine. Traditionally the 0-6-0 goods was THE most common type of loco on any of the former 'Big Four'. The Class 700 appeared all over the former Southern system. It hauled 'pick-up' goods trains all the way to Exeter, down

 

the ex-LBSCR lines and even appeared on passenger duties on the Guildford - Horsham - Steyning - Shoreham route AND on the ill-fated Meon Valley Line that figured so much in my childhood.

 

Instead of writing this I should be getting on with my scratch-build

 

of - YES!! You've guessed!! A Class 700!

 

Since we are on the subject of Drummond and his engines, it would seem fair to mention his Carriage and Wagon Superintendent. This was a Mr. Panter. He realised that people were suffering up to two hour long

 

journeys in non-corridor coaches and tried to introduce at least some lavatory accommodation. The result was his 4-LAV sets. Yes, I know the designation was subsequently used for the four coach e.m.u. sets used on the Brighton and Eastbourne routes, but this

 

is way before electric traction was even a twinkle in Sir Herbert Walker's eye!! These sets were general throughout the LSWR system. Richard Maunsell rebuilt them to 60 feet in length and maintained the lav accommodation. Re-marshalled into three coach sets,

 

they were used on the Reading to Portsmouth and Southampton trains, the Meon Valley, the Sprat and Winkle line and also the Swanage and Lyme Regis branches.

 

This last requires another loco, The Adams 4-4-2T of which there is a much loved example on

 

the Bluebell Railway. This could therefore be another money-spinner for Hornby Ltd. as the Lyme Regis branch would make a very nice subject for a layout.

[Postman Prat]

Hi WTD

 

There were two 'write-offs' at Harrow. The 'down' express, worked by Princess Anne was double headed, the other loco being Jubilee class 4-6-0 no. 45637 Windward Islands which was also damaged beyond repair. The loco on the 'up' sleeper was

 

46242 City of Glasgow and, although she was badly damaged, she was repaired. Thereafter, she was unique as she was the only ex-streamliner to have the curved footplate ahead of the cylinders.

 

I haven't got access to my copy of 'Red For Danger' by LTC

 

Rolt at present, but memory tells me there were two locos 'written off' at Quintinshill. It's a very good book, although long out of print. If your local library can get it for you it's a very interesting read.

 

walkingthedog said:

 

I was

 

only 3 ferret so only know what I have read. I know PP Said it was the worse peacetime crash but surely it must have been the worse crash regarding locos. Like I said earlier the loco they rebuilt looked the worse of the lot.

 

[Postman Prat]

Hi Ferret

 

I will take issue with you re Hornby making a model of the 700 class. Sure, it's a gap but there are far bigger gaps in that a large number of pre-group companies, whose locos lasted to near the end of steam, are not represented at all.

 

The

 

Meon Valley line, as we both know, closed a good many years before Beeching. However there are numerous remains by way of bridges, embankments etc at the Wickham end, indeed I think part of it is an official footpath. Droxford station is still intact and in

 

private hands as a private dwelling. That, I do know, since I was the Droxford village postman for a number of years.

 

I hope this is of interest to you.

 

[walkingthedog]

Ferret you won't get jumped on by me, I always find your replys most informative.

The only reason I mentioned your error about Harrow was because I actually picked up a mistake in somebody elses answer which is unusual for me.

 

PP I did read

 

an article about the crash and met somebody who heard it and visited the scene.

[Postman Prat]

 

It take it you mean an article and met someone etc regarding the Harrow smash and not Quintinhill!

 

[walkingthedog]

I thought we were discussing Harrow, well I was anyway and so was Ferret.

[Postman Prat]

well, Quintinshill came into the thread as well, and knowing how you go off the subject I wanted to be sure!!

 

walkingthedog said:

 

I thought we were discussing Harrow, well I was anyway and so was Ferret.

[walkingthedog]

Yes I do wander a bit don't I.

[Postman Prat]

 

A bit???

 

You wander more than the Children of Israel did in the Old Testament!!!

 

[the ferret]

Well! You're bound to, when following your doggie. After all he just follows his nose like all dogs! I know because I walk my lady friend's whippet. You're not the only dog walker around here, you know!!!When Harry gets into his stride I really have to

 

run fast to keep up!

 

Now I suppose someone will complain about being off-topic again!

[the ferret]

Well!, I mean! There's a gap in the range if ever there was one!

[the ferret]

Well!, I mean! There's a gap in the range if ever there was one!

[walkingthedog]

By the way PP I'll get a copy of Red for Danger. Didn't realise there were 5 locos involved at quintinshill.

[Postman Prat]

 

I think, from memory, there were four trains one being double headed

 

I hope you can get it, you'll learn a lot. SWMBO read it and she enjoyed (that's not the word, but you know what I mean) it, since it goes right back to the dawn of railways.

 

If

 

you get it let me know what you think.

 

[Fishmanoz]

Postman Prat said:


A bit???

You wander more than the Children of Israel did in the Old Testament!!!

Talking about the dawn of railways, maybe they wouldn't have wandered so much if they'd had a decent timetable for

the Mt Sinai line!

[Postman Prat]

 

Maybe there were so many of them they couldn't afford all the tickets??

 

[walkingthedog]

They wouldn't need tickets. Moses would have got the tickets on line and they would have been on his tablets of stone.

[the ferret]

In the face of all this Tomfoolery LC&DR has gone strangely quiet. Are we about to be regaled by actual memories of a REAL railwayman? I really do hope so. After all the rest of us are just amateurs struggling to find reality in our models. LC&DR has called

 

me back from my flights of fancy to reality on several occasions and I welcome that. It keeps you in touch with the way things REALLY were. Isn't that what we are all trying to achieve in spite of "Gaps in the Range"?