Brick trains

[Atlantic 3279]

It's also worth remembering that the GNR was notorious for building locos that could haul more than their sidings could handle
think Steam Tenders, Stirling West Riding 0-6-0's and later the P1's
Paul

There's an interesting challenge to that long-standing claim regarding the P1s, in an article by Owen Russell in the latest LNER Society journal (Winter 2022, just distributed)

[john coffin]

Not read that. be interested to see what is says sometime!!!

Actually I could also have added the Ivatt 0-8-2T and indeed in some ways also the 0-8-0

Paul

[65447]

Better to read the article and its evidence first Paul before making specious claims!

[john coffin]

Specious, interesting thought process.

The 0-8-2T was originally designed for the London Suburban traffic, and proved to be overweight
and unable to cope with the acceleration needs, similar in many ways to the Decapod (GER)

As for the 0-8-0 it suffered the same problem of all powerful engines going to and from London
the Welwyn Viaduct, so who knows for sure whether or not it was too powerful?

Paul

[65447]

Great Northern Locomotive History, Norman Groves, RCTS - Volume 3a 1896-1911 The Ivatt Era

Chapter 2.2 Ivatt Class K1 0-8-0 Mineral Engines, opening paragraph...

Development of a powerful locomotive type to work the extensive coal traffic had hitherto been hampered by a thirty-six wagon limit due to inadequate capacity of refuge sidings, causing difficulty in shunting long trains. Although this drawback had been eliminated by the turn of the century [i.e. 1900] existing goods trains had to resort to double-heading. Following the example of the LNWR and LYR Ivatt designed a large eight-coupled mineral engine using a boiler of similar size to that fitted to his Atlantic design of 1898. The new engine was principally for the unassisted haulage of lengthy coal trains reaching a high density...

The second paragraph describes the first runs of the pioneer engine, between Peterborough and London, which was considered most satisfactory.

Heavy and powerful are not the same...

The 0-8-2T was only deemed overweight by the Civil Engineer for working over the Metropolitan Widened Lines, but met all other criteria.

As I wrote, beware making specious claims, for such is the way that facts get buried and speculation achieves permanence (unless challenged).

[john coffin]

Obviously we both had a different education in English at school.

When the 0-8-0 was introduced, the track had not been extended. By definition therefore, it fits the criteria
previously related ie. Sturrock Steam tenders, and the Original West Riding locos when introduced to overcome
an actual traffic problem were too powerful for the lineside facilities.

As for your comments about the 0-8-2T, if it met all the criteria, why were they reboilered, albeit within the
same od. cladding?

I didn't introduce the idea of the P1, rather related facts about the introduction of particular engines.
If we are going to get really pedantic about things, what about the first N1 which was also too heavy,
and required the rest of the class to have shorter side tanks
PaUl

[65447]

English Language was my equal best GCE, with Mathematics. Comprehension is taught from primary school, so failing to understand that which was typed suggests a different problem...

1. It is very clear that the 0-8-0 was introduced because the refuge sidings had been extended, so your definition and corollaries are both incorrect. Do not lose sight of the fact that train loads were continually increasing and that more powerful locomotives were required to haul them, especially so 'over the Alps' of the West Riding and rising over the Northern Heights out of King's Cross.

2. The 0-8-2T was reboilered solely to reduce weight in order to overcome the restriction placed on them by the Metropolitan Railway's Civil Engineer over the Widened Lines.

3. You did introduce the idea of the P1 in your post of Sunday last, and it is questionable if any of your statements were facts but merely your opinions.

4. And now you come up with another obfuscation regarding the first or pioneer N1. It was not that it was too heavy but that the weight distribution was unsatisfactory. Subsequent amendments to the original design extended the frames and placed the rear radial wheels further back. An enlarged bunker incorporated a water tank that had the same capacity as the amount by which the side tanks were shortened, thereby maintaining the same coal and water capacities whilst redistributing the axle loadings and containing them within the maximum permitted 18 tons, which was greater than the 0-8-2T type by the way. The modified production builds 'proved an immediate success for the work for which they were intended'.

If you do find yusself in a hole boy you do stop diggin, as they say in my neck of the woods.

[65447]

I grew up in Welwyn Garden City and from our living room could see trains passing along the Luton branch line briefly silhouetted against the sky. I now realize that the long "carriages" I remember seeing were likely former LNER brick wagons hauling London trash. Another childhood memory is waving to the guard on these trains as they passed through the woods near our house, but I don't recall what their trains consisted of.
I imagine that, given the weight of their loads, the brick wagons did not form long trains.

Back on the original topic the 50T capacity bogie brick wagons had a tare weight of 16T 19Cwt, so just 3 fully loaded would weigh in at a tad over 200T.