Hello, I'm new in this forum and also just beginning to learn some things about British Steam locomotives. So please don't be surprised if I write questions that every British railfan already knows.
If I understand it write the book: "The locomotives of Sir Nigel Gresley" by O. S. Nock from 1945 states on page 34/35 that Ivatt's Atlantics were all modified with a 32 elements superheater. But some engines mainly found on the Great Central Section did retain their slide valves. Is that correct and if it is, how comes that there weren't problems with lubrication?
Ivatt Atlantics with slide valves and superheater?
Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard
-
Sir Nigel Gresley
- LNER N2 0-6-2T
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:05 am
- Location: Dorset
Hallo Eisenbahn, und wilkommen beim LNER-Forum!
I cannot find any mention of lubrication problems with the superheated C1s which retained slide valves.
Possibly this is because their boiler pressure was reduced, and they were used on the Great Central section, where the duties were not too arduous.
There may be some more information in the RCTS book, "Locomotives of the LNER - Part 3A Tender locomotives C1 - C11" ("Tender locomotive" heißt eigentlich "Schlepptenderlok. auf Deutsch!") Unfortunately I do not have a copy.
Gruß
Dick
I cannot find any mention of lubrication problems with the superheated C1s which retained slide valves.
Possibly this is because their boiler pressure was reduced, and they were used on the Great Central section, where the duties were not too arduous.
There may be some more information in the RCTS book, "Locomotives of the LNER - Part 3A Tender locomotives C1 - C11" ("Tender locomotive" heißt eigentlich "Schlepptenderlok. auf Deutsch!") Unfortunately I do not have a copy.
Gruß
Dick
Vielen Dank für die Willkommensgrüße!
I've got to try to get those books. I'haven't got them yet as I'm just starting to read British locomotive books. Are they covering all the LNER locomotives? Are they still in print?
By the way because you mentioned tender locomotives, why are Tenderlokomotiven called tanks in English?
I've got to try to get those books. I'haven't got them yet as I'm just starting to read British locomotive books. Are they covering all the LNER locomotives? Are they still in print?
By the way because you mentioned tender locomotives, why are Tenderlokomotiven called tanks in English?
-
richard
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 3385
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:11 pm
- Location: Wichita Falls, Texas
- Contact:
Tank engines are so named because they have water tanks in the locomotive - and not a tender.
The full set of RCTS books cover all classes (and even some obscure unclassed locomotives) that served with the LNER. This includes loaners such as the USATC S160s. There's a lot of detail so they're probably not for those with only a passing interest in the LNER. Some are in print, most are not. I think the RCTS cycles those that are in print? EBay, AbeBooks,etc can be used to get used copies.
Richard
The full set of RCTS books cover all classes (and even some obscure unclassed locomotives) that served with the LNER. This includes loaners such as the USATC S160s. There's a lot of detail so they're probably not for those with only a passing interest in the LNER. Some are in print, most are not. I think the RCTS cycles those that are in print? EBay, AbeBooks,etc can be used to get used copies.
Richard
Richard Marsden
LNER Encyclopedia
LNER Encyclopedia
-
Boris
- GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:00 pm
- Location: leeds
- Contact:
Tender locomotives/Tank locomotives
Tender loco's are the ones with a tender, tank loco's are the ones with side tanks,saddle tanks or well tanks and a coal bunker behind the cab as part of the loco'.
EX DARNALL 39B FIREMAN 1947-55
-
Colombo
- LNER Thompson B1 4-6-0 'Antelope'
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:44 pm
- Location: Derbyshire
- Contact:
Eisenbahn,
I see what you mean: tenderlokomotiven really does mean tank locomotive in German. This is what linguists call a false friend, you guess the translation and it lets you down.
However, of this I am certain, as we had them first, and Germany bought her first locomotives from us, we got it right and you are wrong. This makes a nice change.
Colombo
I see what you mean: tenderlokomotiven really does mean tank locomotive in German. This is what linguists call a false friend, you guess the translation and it lets you down.
However, of this I am certain, as we had them first, and Germany bought her first locomotives from us, we got it right and you are wrong. This makes a nice change.
Colombo
Ok you may be right at that. But why do you use the same word for army tanks? You may laugh but when I first heard of Thomas the Tank I had a difficult time to understant what Thomas has to do with (army) tanks. Back then it was the only meaning I knew of the word tank.
I think I can accept that you claim to be right on the issue there because you have the longer tradition with locomotives, as long as we are driving on the correct side of the road!!!
By the way didn't it make for some trouble when the railway companies were merged together and the new companies had some engines where the driver was on the left and a few where he was on the right?
I think I can accept that you claim to be right on the issue there because you have the longer tradition with locomotives, as long as we are driving on the correct side of the road!!!
By the way didn't it make for some trouble when the railway companies were merged together and the new companies had some engines where the driver was on the left and a few where he was on the right?
-
Colombo
- LNER Thompson B1 4-6-0 'Antelope'
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:44 pm
- Location: Derbyshire
- Contact:
Eisenbahn,
This is a bit off the topic, but here goes:
When in 1915, the first army tanks were ordered from Rustons at Lincoln, the British Army did not want anybody to know about their secret weapon, in case a Graf Zeppelin were dispatched to stop the project. So the workers were told that they were building "Water Carriers for Mesopotamia". They became known as "water tanks", and then just "tanks" and the name stuck...for ever. As it was they tried them out on the front line too early in insufficient numbers. So the opposing trenches were widened when the lesson had been learned and future raids were less successful. If they had held them back until they had a good 200 or so, they might have made a big break through and ended all that stupidity a lot sooner.
As regards the other question: It was customary for a pedestrian or a horseman to walk on the left the better to defend himself. In the same way a coachman would sit on the right hand side of the carriage and drive on the left so that he could quickly reach for his sword or pistol and brandish it at any potential robbers or "Highwaymen" who might be approaching in the opposite direction. This is why we drive on the left.
So locomotive driving positions were initially set up on the right hand side (RHS) of the locomotive in the same traditional way. There was no problem with this until the early 1900s when locomotives such as your Ivatt Atlantics came along with huge boilers and the loco drivers could not see the signals which were placed on the LHS of the track. So they started building locos that you drove on the LHS. Eventually nearly all locos drove on the left.
Colombo
This is a bit off the topic, but here goes:
When in 1915, the first army tanks were ordered from Rustons at Lincoln, the British Army did not want anybody to know about their secret weapon, in case a Graf Zeppelin were dispatched to stop the project. So the workers were told that they were building "Water Carriers for Mesopotamia". They became known as "water tanks", and then just "tanks" and the name stuck...for ever. As it was they tried them out on the front line too early in insufficient numbers. So the opposing trenches were widened when the lesson had been learned and future raids were less successful. If they had held them back until they had a good 200 or so, they might have made a big break through and ended all that stupidity a lot sooner.
As regards the other question: It was customary for a pedestrian or a horseman to walk on the left the better to defend himself. In the same way a coachman would sit on the right hand side of the carriage and drive on the left so that he could quickly reach for his sword or pistol and brandish it at any potential robbers or "Highwaymen" who might be approaching in the opposite direction. This is why we drive on the left.
So locomotive driving positions were initially set up on the right hand side (RHS) of the locomotive in the same traditional way. There was no problem with this until the early 1900s when locomotives such as your Ivatt Atlantics came along with huge boilers and the loco drivers could not see the signals which were placed on the LHS of the track. So they started building locos that you drove on the LHS. Eventually nearly all locos drove on the left.
Colombo