Three years from pencil sharpening to steaming — S. M. Bennett's excellent 7'/4in. gauge model of Penrhyn Quarry Railway 0-4-OT 'Charles'.

A Publication of the l l t Gauge Society No.25 Summer 1983

Established 1945

Castings, Drawings and Materials for Locomotives from gauge 1 to 7%" gauge, Traction Engines from 1" to 3" scale, Steam Road Vehicles, Station Steam Engines, l /C Engines,

Workshop Equipment, Drawings and Castings.

Copper in Sheet, Sections and Tube from 1/16" to 61/," o.d.

Brass Sheet and Sections.

Stainless Steel Rounds from 1/16" to 1" Spring Steel Strip.

Round Cast Iron Bars. Monel Metal Rod. Mild Steel Section and Plate. Silver Steel Rounds, Squares and Flats.

Boiler Flanged Plate Sets for over 195 Designs.

Nuts, Bolts, Washers, Rivets, Pins,Transfers, Paints, Lubricants and Cutting Oils, Pressure Gauges and Boiler Fittings.

Silver Solders, Fluxes and Soft Solders, etc.

Full Range of Sievert Brazing Equipment.

Main Agents for Myford and Boxford Lathes and Millers, Emco Machinery, Senior Millers, Fobco Drilling Machines and a Wide Range of Hand and Machine Tools by Leading

British Manufacturers. Stockists of Accessories for all the above Machines.

Books, Magazines and Publications.

Hie Largest Stock of Model Engineering Supplies in the World 140 page illustrated catalogue price £1.50 post free UK. f-m

Overseas Surface or Airmail, post extra. r > 1 COUNTER SALES or W O R L D W I D E MAIL ORDER SERVICE.

Retail Counter Hours: Monday-Friday 9-12.30, 1.30-4 pm Saturday 9-12.30 pm

A.J.Recves&Co.(B'ham)Ltd Holly Lane, Marston Green, Birmingham B37 TAW England. Tel: 021779 6831/2/3

Nearly Finished GOING ARCX/ty. H UMMING of the Mowers . . . 0 ver well sheared Lawns . . . L ONGING . . . to get away f rom i t . . . 1 nstead of Dancing Pawns . . . D evon . . . Denmark . . . Go where you w i l l . . A WAY AMONGST THE STEAM ENGINES . . Y ou cna never completely f u l f i l . . . S TEAMING-UP . . . in SUNSHINE . . . o r in RAIN . . . BRINGS SO MUCH CONTENTMENT . . . that . . . l a s t s the YEAR ROUND AGAIN! I . . . (of course you wi l l fit FYNE FORT FITTINGS)

see you... Guildford, Stoke Pk. Traction Meet, 16/17 July 1983 Newport, IOW, Tech. Coll. 30 July 1983

ICowes week!) IOWMES EXHIBITION FIT FYNE FORT F I T T I N G S

w e t oo are comple te ly l o c o ! ! !

% 00 m Z o

List still f ree f o r S . A . E

FITTINGS FOR SEVEN 3/ain. pipe 5/i6in. pipe Vi»in. pipe 3/i6in. pipe

KITS OF FITTINGS for. "HIGHLANDER" "HOLMSIDE" "HERCULES" "DART"

ask for free list IS.A.E.)

EXTRAS Fourways — Crosshead Pumps . . . Extended Handles Extended Spindles

Cylinder Drain Cocks: over 30 different items. Lubricators in Tanks: single, twin, triple M ' ,1 sq., 2 "x3V2" (Hercules) Watergauges: Plain, single vl two vl. three vl. "Highlander" (with and without blowdownl "Holmside" Globe Valves—Angle—(threaded/flanged) — Female, Double Female, Male; Inline: Flanged, Flanged Floor Mounted Safety Valves: Express Tank Modified Tank . . . "Hercules", "Highlander", "Holmside", "Dart", "Tich", "Rob Roy". Manifolds: IK)-1^1«" Inj.VI. (LI V4" Inj.VI. . "Highlander", "Holmside" Whistle Turret: "Hercules" . . . Vertical LBSC 3 or 4 take offs. Valves: Blowdown, Blower, Check, By-Pass, Control, Globe, Pedestal, Safety, Tender Water, Injector, Water Injector, Whistle. Washers, Adaptors, Syphons. Bushings, Unions, Nuts, Cones, Bulkhead Unions, Blowers, etc.. Box Spanners, Pumps . . . Tender, Freestanding, Crosshead, Axle, Polypenco, Nickel Silver and Packed Gland . . rams . . . AND of course . . WHISTLES.

ZZZZZZZZZZEALZZZZZZZZZZEALZZZZZZZZZZEALZZZ"--

Take your Loco on Holiday to Norfolk visit the Blue Riband line in Hemsby Great Yarmouth

BOOK EARLY

Resident Locomotives 4472 "Flying Scotsman", 5157 "Glasgow Highlander", "James" a Romulus with tender, "Llanrhaeadr" a small narrow gauge,"The County of Norfolk" a Bo-Bo electric and an 0-4-0 battery electric.

OOpen from EASTER to the end of OCTOBER O PARKLAND BUNGALOW ESTATE is pure magic to the many ?i" gauge enthusiasts who have already made a visit , four acres of paradise to train lovers , a super railway set in beautiful surroundings with accommodation in first class luxury detatched brick bungalows for the ideal family holiday. My brochure will give you full details of the bungalows and the layout. You can run your loco at times to suit your holiday plans, but if you love railways then you will enjoy this holiday even if you have no loco of your own, all rides are free so the children can have unlimited r ides , there is a play area for the children. You can bring your dog on holiday too.

it SOME OF THE MANY INTERESTING PLACES TO VISIT it Pleasurewood Hills Railway, Corton, Nr. Lowestoft, almost a mile of 7}" gauge railway, a warm welcome from Happy, John&Graham and maybe a chance to run your own loco. Bressingham Steam Museum, in steam Sundays and Thursdays. Wells to Walsingham, the longest 10i"gauge railway in Gt. Britain, 8 miles round tr ip steam hauled 7 days a week during the season. The Thursford Collection open daily May 1st to October 31sU The Kessingland Wildlife Park with \0l'< gauge "Royal Scot" Standard gauge on the North Norfolk Railway. Many other places outlined in our free colour brochure.

Engine shed space For more details and brochure contact: — for visiting locos D o n Witheridge 480. phone 0493 -730445

3 Blue Riband House, Parkland Estate, HEMSBY, unloading ramp GREAT YARMOUTH. NORFOLK. NR294HA

^ NO INCREASE IN PRICES FOR 1 9 8 3 ^

in

— A Publication of the 7U Gauge Society

EDITOR: Dr.J.B. Rogers. Porters Hill Farm. Nr. Droitwich. Worcestershire. (Wore. 52397) SUB-EDITOR/ PRODUCTION:

R. Green, 60 Weston Road. Gloucester.

ADVERTISING SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN THE NEWS Lull Page: £25.00 Hall Page: £15.00 Quarter Page: £X.(X) Supply Camera Ready Copy Typesetting chargeable. Circulated to every member of the 7 ' V G. Society and available to the trade and public. ****** CONTRIBUTIONS WELCOME Although every care is taken of submitted material, there can be no firm guarantee that use can be made of it and no responsibility be taken for damage to photographs or other material received Should photographs need to be credited in print, this must be specified at submission Having said that, material is most wel­come and it is unlikelv that nror but i t with items going through several hands between Author and tinal print we can make no guarantee. For preference, typed double spaced on A4 paper Photographs and draw­ings are preferred for Vi page size, landscape format.

From The Editors Desk . . . This issue contains a long article on "Standards", which has been written, after much thought, by Eric Smith at the request of the Committee. It is important to remember that Charles Simpson and George Smith produced the earlier Society Stan­dards, and nothing now done detracts from their efforts or in­deed changes them.

As mentioned in the current article, there is a constant trickle of requests to the Society for guidance of "Standards": These are primarily from newcomers to the hobby, but also from commercial undertakings, and even the considerably ex­perienced modellers.

The impending upheaval in the U.S.A., mentioned in the ar­ticle, has caused several indignant groups there to contact us to seek our support in adhering to the Greenly Standards, hal­lowed by time and proved by experience. In fact we feel that we can no longer "sit on the fence"; as the only Society which has a worldwide interest exclusively in 7'/tin. gauge, it would be unthinkable not to voice a firm opinion in this affair.

With this in mind (hastened by some degree of urgency) your Committee is publishing Eric Smith's ideas for discussion. Two factors should be explained: Firstly, nothing new is suggested — it is the old Greenly material, with simple reason­ing included and, secondly — we are making no rules.

If you wish, you can build locomotives and track to whatever specification you please. If you already have 7in. or IV-zm. track with all the wheelsets with varying back-to-back dimen­sions, and you don't want to know what a check gauge is — that's fine; however, if you would like to take a loco to the AGM this year, or ask a few friends to run on your line, you are likely to have a much less troublesome time if we can all agree. To repeat — we are not trying to force anyone to do anything — in fact the chances are that most of you will not require to do anything other than carry on as you are.

The Committee, and we hope the membership, are very grateful to Eric and hope that those who can help to amplify the Standards (as he requests) will do so by writing direct to him. It would be helpful if points could be constructive, and then perhaps we will be able to publish sound and permanent "Standards" by next winter. Letters to the Editor on the mat­ter would also be considered for publication in the News, but it is hoped that we can rapidly resolve any problems without ac­rimony, and with despatch.

1

•&•&•&

The full extent of the generous support of the Society by Nigel Rainbow's financial help for the News has now become apparent: It seems certain that he had personally subsidised each copy and that his total contribution over the twenty-three issues which he produced runs into many hundreds of pounds. Whilst we are all beneficiaries of this generosity, it has led us to believe that the production of a high-class magazine was cheaper than the figures now reveal.

We are still fortunate in getting advantageous terms but the production costs will have to be brought more nearly into line with current commercial prices and practices, and this, in turn, will inevitably demand a higher subscription. Fortunately the present Society funds will be adequate to finance the News and Society costs until the AGM, when there will be an urgent need to raise the subs.

As a matter of interest, the Society subscription was held at £1 until it was raised, in 1975, to £3.50: there can be few similar organisations who have been able to hold prices level for 8 years and now, with regret, the increase will have to be substantial.

it it it

Member No. 936 was recently enrolled. It would be nice to celebrate our first decade by hitting the 1,000 mark — it would also help to keep down overheads and, therefore, subs! Will everyone please try to recruit new members?

it it it

This issue contains a further article about the Echills Wood Railway — venue for this year's ACiM. It is hoped that a boiler-testing operation with a Test Rig provided by the Society will be available as a service to members who will be bringing locomotives, and require a test. The owners must, however, provide adequate fittings for the boiler providing cither a '/kin. BSP or -V«in. BSP Taper male or female thread to accept both the Test Gauge and Pump. Boiler certificates will be issued where appropriate.

•tr ir it

May we once again appeal to members to enclose stamped, addressed envelopes where replies, receipts, or Membership Cards have to be sent from the Committee?

it it it

The Editor acknowledges, with thanks, receipt of the following: "The Whistle", "The Con Rod", "L'Escorbille" and "East Herts. Miniature Railway News".

Brian Rogers it it it

In order to produce the Autumn issue in time for the AGM, press date was 14th June — as announced in the Secretary's Notes which accompanied the Spring Issue.

2

INFORMATION ON THE 7'/4in. GAUGE SOCIETY

Anyone wishing to join the Society, apply to the Secretary. Annual Subscriptions due in February each year are unchanged at £3.50. New U.K. members, as above plus initial registration fee of £1 .(Ml. Payments can most conveniently be made by Bankers Standing Order. Overseas Subscription £5 remitted in Sterling please.

Executive for 1982/3

President: Dr. Brian Rogers. Chairman: Roger Marsh. Nunficld'. Grove Road. Burbage. Hinckley. Leics. Secretary: Roy Bickley. B.E.M.. Caravan Harbour. Crystal Palace Parade.

London. SE19 1UF. Treasurer: Leo Whisstock. 149 Surbiton Hill Park, Surbiton. Surrey. Editor, 7'/4 Gauge NEWS: Dr. Brian Rogers (Address on Editorial page). Sub Editor/Production: R. Green. 60 Weston Road. Gloucester. Trade Liaison Officer: Mike Sharp. 41 Havers Avenue, Hersham, Walton on

Thames, Surrey. Insurance Secretary: Eric Smith. Bucks Cottage. Bucklebury, Sladc.

Nr. Reading. Berks.

Telephone Numbers: Roger Marsh: 0455.39294. Roy Bickley: 01.659.6112. L. Whisstock: 01.390.1747. M. Sharp: 093.22.27415. E. Smith: 0635.62738.

WHEEL AND TRACK STANDARDS FOR 7 •/tin. GAUGE Eric Smith

Though the subject of wheel and track standards has come up many times during the 7'/4in. Gauge Society's ten years of existence, no determined effort has been made so far to try and correlate all the information that we have obtained and combine it into a set of recommended standards for use in our hobby. The 'standard' that most people use at the moment are the ones that Henry Greenly published at the beginning of the century, which, though adequate, lack some of the more detailed points that we need. This has been shown up more recently in the increasing number of requests that we are getting from both clubs and individuals starting in 7'A who have got no reference as to what to use for their wheel and track standards, so the committee, feeling that we are somewhat overdue in formulating a set of standards, have decided to go ahead and try to gauge people's opinions on the subject. That there is a lack of information is evident in the large number of varying wheel profiles to be seen around the tracks, some good, some poor, and some so bad that they are likely to cause damage to the track (as at Hemsby AGM). In the absence of anyone else volunteering, I have beeen persuaded by the committee, at somewhat short notice, to write an article to try and explain the need for correct wheel profiles with the hope that we will get enough feed-back from you, the members, or anyone else to be able to put forward a set of recommendations that will be acceptable to most of us. It is not going to be an easy task, some people feel that there is no need, as it is after all a hobby, whilst others feel that wc should be more strict, so it is as well to ask why we need standards at all.

3

We do already have one common standard worldwide, the track gauge of 7'/4in. and it is because of this that we are able to run on other people's tracks. This is, of course, half the enjoyment of the hobby and it is to ensure that we are able to continue to do this without fear of damage or derailment that we need to have a common standard to follow. The other reason is that not all of us, particularly the new members among us, are in the position of having the time or the facilities to be able to determine the correct way of profiling wheels and it is only sensible that we, in the Society should provide this information. Having been asked to write this article, I do not profess to be an expert on the subject but am simply collecting together all the information that I have obtained over the past few years and putting it forward in condensed form which I hope is understandable, and then to await the reactions from you before proceeding any further.

Existing standards Enough of the preamble then, let's look at the position that we are in at the

moment. From the information that we have so far been able to obtain, it would appear that some 98% of locos built in the UK are built to the generally accepted "standard" of 6-y4in. or 6 13/16in. back to back from Grcenly's standards, and that most of the rail in common use is either a heavy section aluminium rail with a radius on the corner of the railhead of '/xin., or alternatively mild steel bar with a much sharper radius. One or two rail sections are much nearer to scale with a head radius of about l/16in., but there is also in use some much heavier section steel contractors rail which has a larger radius on the corner. It would therefore seem that is should be a basic requirement of any recommendation that it must encompass as much as possible of the existing situation otherwise the amount of change required will deter people from accepting it. In this respect it is interesting to note the considerable dissension in the States at the moment over the proposals by The Brotherhood of Live Steamers for a new 7'/4in. gauge standard that is totally incompatible with the already existing standards.

Going back to the 6-V4in. and 6 13/16in. back to back mentioned above, this originates from, as those of you who have read Rod Weaver's article in issue No. 7 of "The News" will know. Henry Greenly when he formulated his standards in 1902-1912. That these standards today still form the basis from which most people build their locos shows the soundness with which they were originally thought out, and it would seem pointless to change these basic dimensions which have stood the test of time so well and thus any new standards should be based on these. One very important point is that the two most commonly used of his standards, the 63/4in. B to B with 3/l6in. flange and the 6 13/16in. B to B with '/Kin. flange have the same check gauge of 6 15/16in., more of which later, and this gives us an even greater incentive to use these two as the basis to work on. Where Greenly didn't define his standards was on the subject of wheel profile and it is to this area that we will look first to see the necessity of the correct profile.

Wheel profiles The subject of track and wheel standards conveniently splits into two different

areas, that of making the wheel roll properly on the rail, the task of the wheel profile; and that of ensuring the correct passage of a wheelset consisting of two wheels on an axle through a turnout or switch which is the combined job of the back to back and the check or guard rails. In Rod Weaver's article he gave a good account of the requirements that the wheel has to meet and it would be a good

•t

idea to reread his article, but for those of you who cannot I have repeated the salient points from it in order to give you the whole picture.

The job of the wheel and rail profile is to do three things; firstly to make sure that there is only single point contact between each other so as to ensure as free a running as possible, secondly to be able to guide the wheel round a curve without the flange touching the rail, and lastly, to make sure the flange presents an angled face to any irregularities in the track so that it will not climb up over them and derail. The first two requirements are dealt with by the combination of the two radii on the head of the rail and the root of the wheel as shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1 A, we have a wheel running on a rail where the radius on the wheel between the

f 1

v _ 1

f ^ V \

~7 ^ M

f i

^_ i

W R O N ^

-"*

A B C Fig.l

flange and the tread is larger than the radius on the corner of the rail head. This means that there is only one point where the two can touch so that, with single point contact, there is very little resistance to the wheel rolling. This even applies if the wheel has been pushed sideways as in going round a curve, the point of contact moving round the head of the rail and lifting the wheel slightly as in Fig.IB. Two things happen at this juncture, the wheel having lifted slightly, the weight of the vehicle on the wheel will try and push it back down and move the point of contact back towards the top of the rail, but also, with the point of contact at an angle, it exerts an inclined, inwards force which has the effect of steering the wheel round the curve without the flange touching the rail — the sharper the curve, the greater the rise of the wheel and the bigger the angle of the point of contact.

If, on the other hand, the root radius of the wheel is smaller than the rail head radius, provided the wheel flange is not touching the rail as on a straight some of the time, it will run satisfactorily, but as soon as the flange touches the rail, as on a curve, it will be pushed against the rail to provide the guiding force and 2 point contact is established as in 1C. As the two points of contact are of different wheel diameters, one of them, inevitably the lower one on the flange, must slip and so grind against the side of the rail with at best a large increase in the friction, but more likely grinding away both the rail and the flange. In extreme cases where the tip of the flange is sharp, it can even act like a milling machine and shave off quite large slivers of aluminium from the side of the rail. So the case of the wheel radius being smaller than the rail head radius must be avoided at all costs but, on the other hand, if it is too large, it will cause the wheel to lift too much creating other problems.

5

Flange angle It is only when we come to the problem of irregularities in the track that the

flange itself comes into play and to look at this requires a slightly unusual diagram as in Fig.2. Starting with Fig.2A, this shows a wheel on a rail with two different flange angles superimposed on each other. If we take a slice through these flanges at rail level as in Fig.2B and look at the sliced off piece of flange from the top, we get the somewhat peculiar shape shown in Fig.2C which, along with the tip of the flange, shows the top of the rail with a badly aligned rail joint in the offing. As in Fig.2A, the solid line shows the shape of the thicker flange, the dotted one that of

Fig.2

the thinner flange with the larger flange angle. It should be obvious from this that the flange with the greater angle, even though the radius at the tip of the flange is smaller, stands a better chance of being able to cope with the misalignment than the shallower angle flange with the larger tip radius. If the angle is too great, then the flange starts to get rather thin and weak at the tip with a very sharp radius, so as a general guide , most full-size flange profiles use an angle of between 20° and 32° with a common one being 22°. Before moving onto the other wheel dimensions, it is interesting to look at a wheel with a straight flange and no angle going round a curve, this being shown in Fig.2D. Here the wheel flange is rubbing

6

against the rail at 2 points as well as the top of the rail, the forward part of the flange digging in and bound to cause trouble sooner of later. Couple this with no radius on the tip of the flange and we get the milling machine effect mentioned earlier.

Non-critical dimensions The other dimensions that concern the wheel shape but are not of critical

importance as are the above, consist of the wheel width and flange width, both of which are dealt with later, the tread coning, depth of flange and the tip radius of the flange. The subject of whether to taper wheel treads in models always creates controversy, and we will not go into it here, except to say that the main reason for using it is to prevent the wheel running in the root radius all the time, so causing premature wear; however, it is up to you as to whether or not you use it. The depth of the flange itself is not important to the operation of the wheel, though when it comes to irregularities as in Fig.2C, a deeper flange will have a shallower flange angle for the same flange width and so be slightly better off, but not much. The tip of the flange should never of course come into play at all, but if it does due to gross misalignment or very sharp curves, then it should have a rounded edge rather than a straight one to avoid digging in, but the dimensions of the radius are not critical, even a file will do. Lastly, the chamfer at the edge of the wheel tread is to make sure that the edge of the wheel does not catch on any rails in a turnout that is not entirely level, but the size and angle are not important. That then deals with, rather quickly, the basics behind wheel shapes and we can now go on to the problems of dealing with points, turnouts, switches or whatever you prefer to call them, depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.

Turnouts As the various parts of a turnout are called by many different names, before

dealing with what happens when a wheelset runs through a turnout, it would be as well to define the terminology that I intend to use here as shown in Fig.3. Here we have a simple right-hand turnout with some, but not all, of the major components labelled. Starting with the stock rails, these are the ones that run right through the

Fig.3

7

turnout (actually in three pieces) with, in between them, the combination of rails in the dotted box called the crossing, but more commonly know as the frog. This crossing consists of the two rails joined together to form a vee, the tip of the vee being called the nose. Either side of the vee are two rails, the wing rails, that support the wheel as it runs over the gap before the nose of the crossing, the gap between the wing rails and the vee being called the crossing flangeway. Though not in the dotted box, the check rails, also known as guard rails, in fact form part of the crossing and are at a specified distance from the nose of the crossing to protect the crossing itself from the wheel flanges, as we shall see later. The closure rails and the blades do not directly concern us at the moment.

If we now take a cross-section through the turnout at the nose of the crossing, we get the diagram shown in Fig.4. If we now look first at Fig.4A, this shows a wheelset running through the turnout on the lefthand track but disposed centrally on that track. In this position, neither of the flanges are touching any of the rails and the wheels will therefore pass freely through the turnout without fouling the nose of the crossing. If the wheels have for some reason been pushed to the left as in Fig.4B with the lefthand wheel against the stockrail, as there is no gap in the stock rail for the wheel to bridge, there is no need for the wheels to be restrained

T°i •l/rT rri B

STOCK R A I L CHECK RAIL c WINQ RAIL NO$£ WINQ RAI,

Fig. 4

and the wing rail is not required, therefore, to act as a check rail. This means that it can be positioned so that it is clear of the back of the righthand flange and can be referenced as a distance from the nose of the crossing, this being the crossing flangeway mentioned previously. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the bigger the crossing flangeway, the bigger the gap in front of the nose for the wheel to bridge. Note that in this case, the righthand wheel must be wide enough to reach right across the nose of the crossing, the crossing flangeway the other side and still give sufficient bearing area to run on the other wing rail, the minimum wheel width being based on this requirement.

8

Going on now to Fig.4C, this is where problems can occur as we have here the wheel pushed to the right with the righthand wheel poised over the gap in front of the nose of the crossing. As shown, the flange will still miss the nose and pass the correct side of it, however if the wheels move any further to the right, the flange will strike the nose with the possibility of damage or derailment. It is here that the check rail comes into use as its function is to prevent any further movement of the wheels to the right by restraining the back of the lefthand flange from moving to the right. It is not required to pull the wheels over to the left as the righthand flange will miss the nose as it is, purely to prevent further movement to the right. It follows therefore that with the wheels pushed to the limit of their normal travel to the right, i.e. against the running rail if it were continuous, the check rail must be co-incident with the back of the other flange so that when the gap comes up, it restrains the wheels from any further movement into the gap. Note in particular that the lefthand stock rail has not come into the argument in this last case and that the check rail is not measured from the adjacent stock rail but from the nose of the crossing that it is protecting. This means that both the wing rail and the check rail are measured from the crossing nose, the dimension for the wing rail being the crossing flangeway, that of the check rail being called the check gauge.

Check gauge In Fig.5, we have the same cross-section as in Fig.4 but with the addition of

various dimensions and without the wing rail drawn in as it will not enter into the calculations. This shows the wheelset at the limit of its normal travel to the right with the lefthand wheel touching the check rail, with some of the more important dimensions included. The track check gauge is the distance from the face of the

BACK TO BACK

-WHEEL CHECK GAUGE

FLANGE

+-/

TRACK CHECK GAUGE

— TRACK GAUCE —

?'

V

Fig.5 check rail to the opposite running rail and is the same as the wheel check gauge, this being the sum of the back to back plus the thickness of one flange. The reason for calling the check gauge by two different names even though they are the same will be explained later. If we therefore define the track standards by the two dimensions, the track gauge and the check gauge (that is why they are called gauges), this means that we may vary the back to back and the flange thickness provided that the sum of the two always equals the check gauge. This takes us back to the beginning where reference was made to the fact that the two standards of Greenly's, in spite of having different back to backs, still had the same check gauge and were therefore compatible. The only difference is that the thinner flanged standard has more sideplay in it than the thicker flanged one. The reason for referring to both a track check gauge and a wheel_ check gauge is that, even though they should be the same, to allow for inaccuracies in manufacture, mainly

')

in laying the track, it is prudent to ensure that the wheel cannot strike the nose under any circumstances by increasing the track check gauge by a slight amount so that the worst possible combination of tolerances will still allow the wheel to be kept clear of the nose.

Greenly's standard With this explanation, it is possible to look at Greenly's original standards and

show how they fit in with the above. His "commercial" standard uses a back to back of 63/»in. with a flange thickness of 3/16in., his "fine" scale a back to back of 6 13/16in. and a flange thickness of '/sin., both of these giving a check gauge of 6 15/16in., the difference being that the commercial standard has a sideplay of '/sin., the fine standard one of 3/16in. As these two are by far the most commonly used at the moment, it would be sensible to base any proposals on these two rather than try to make a major alteration at this point.

Tolerances As it is impossible to build either track or wheels to an absolute accuracy, a

tolerance has to be put on any dimension that is critical so as to give us a guide to the latitude allowed in the manufacture. The problem here is — what is a reasonable level of accuracy that we can expect people to work to in view of the wide variations in skills encountered within the society, and purely as a start, I have suggested that we should aim to lay our track in a turnout to within l/32in. at the crossing and turn the wheels to within l/64in. If you think this is unreasonable, then please let me know as it is you who will be using the standard. This gives a maximum wheel check gauge of 6 61/64in. which therefore must be the minimum track gauge to ensure that the flange misses the nose, so giving a track check gauge of 6 61/64in. + l/32in. which comes out as the same that Rod Weaver gave in his article of 6 31/32in. ± l/64in. Going the other way, the worst combination of the tolerances means that the back of the wheel flange will strike the check rail by 3/ 64in. None of this applies to the crossing flangeway and this can conventiently be set at 5/16in.

Flanges Going back to the Existing Standards section, mention was made that most rail

used in 7'/4in. gauge has a head radius of '/sin., with mild steel bar and correct section rail nearer l/16in. So the root radius has to be larger than '/sin., but not too large so as to lift the wheel too much on steel bar, a suitable compromise being a radius of 5/32in. This is slightly larger than has been recommended so far but can be seen to be necessary if the number of wheels running around with rusty patches in the root is anything to go by. This radius is still not big enough for the heavy section contractors track, and the best thing to do here is to try and limit its use to straight track, if you can, where it is not so critical to keep the flange away from the side of the rail.

The significance of having a reasonable flange angle is becoming more widely accepted and though prototype practice uses a somewhat greater angle, a suitable compromise is one of 20°, this providing a good inclination of the flange to any track defects without having too weak a tip which could break off in a derailment. Flange depth is not a critical factor and we see no reason for changing from the already accepted practice of 3/16in. for standard gauge locos and '/4in. for narrow gauge locos.

10

Proposed standards The last diagram, Fig.6, has been included to combine together all that has

been mentioned so far to give an idea of the kind of suggestions that we are looking for in the way of a standard for 7 V*W. gauge. This diagram is not meant to be a proposal for the standard, as it is much too early to be able to do this yet, but has been included to illustrate the kind of ideas that we are looking for and so also act as a catalyst. What we would like to have now are suggestions and criticisms (preferably helpful) from you on the general subject of track standards with the eventual aim of publishing in the near future some proposals for your consideration.

,<- \'l NO

'I so

^k

%W

b\ NG o-W 6%-SG

-6t'-0'/M-

-7'V-O**"-

•Uf-

Fig.6

The kind of information that is needed is for instance: Are there any rail sections in common use that have a head radius of more than Vsin.? How docs aluminium rail wear on the head with intensive use? How do multigauge tracks fit in, i.e. with respect to distance over check rails? Are there any locos built to the SMEE/ME standards published in the "Model Engineer" 7th May 1976, though these are as near compatible as makes no odds apart from the root radius of • lOOin. which is too small? How accurate can we expect to lay our track bearing in mind that the only critical dimension is the position of the check rails with respect to the crossing nose? Can wheel back to backs be measured more accurately than l/64in.?

Other questions that come up which are of a more general nature are: What should be the maximum axleloading? We at the moment suggest 5001b. How much gauge widening should be used and at what radius? How much cant or elevation do people use? What should be the minimum centre to centre of tracks? Is 4ft. enough? What clearance to fixed structures? Is 2ft. adequate? What minimum height under bridges?

So it is up to you now to let us know your feelings on the subject so that when we come to drawing up the proposal for a standard, it reflects not only the theory behind the problem but is a practical approach and meets the requirements of the members. It is no good producing a set of standards that are unacceptable and provoke criticism as they will in turn not be accepted and used, so destroying the whole point of having them in the first place.

So, with those few questions as a start, for I am sure that there are many more

I I

points to be brought up, we now await with bated breath the brickbats to st?rt flying in our direction as there is no subject like standards to start people off. Tne final result is, we hope, that we will be able to publish a set of standards that will resolve some of the problems that we are encountering at the moment and also be a guide to those who arc entering our hobby for the first time.

REPORTS IN BRIEF Two new Tal-y-llyn inspired locomotives described

"Falklands Heroes", an 0-4-2T based on Tal-y-llyn practice has been completed by R. Butler of Worsley, Manchester, and this will be seen, no doubt, at many venues this summer.

The details are: Length 48in.; Height 31in.; Wheels 6'/2in. diam.; Cylinders 2'/sin. bore 3'/4in. stroke; Copper boiler.

Geoffrey Charles writes to say that his Romulus-type loco — "Tan Yr Ywcn" — is now virtually finished.

"The outline is loosely based on the Tal-y-llyn No.6 'Douglas' (a Barclay built 0-4-0 built in 1919 for the RAF at Calshot), but with the addition of a pannier/ saddle tank to camouflage the length of the boiler and so to avoid the 'Dachsund' effect. The 'copper' visible is not the actual boiler itself but phosphor bronze cleading which I had not the heart to paint. The total construction time was around 1950 hours, excluding the copper boiler which was supplied by Roger Marsh Ltd. Quite a lot of extra detail has been added to the original Romulus drawings without which I estimate the construction time would have been about 1000 hours. The boiler is a very free steamer and I am fully satisfied with the loco, especially as it is my first attempt completed. (I have a part-finished 3'/2in. gauge Black 5 started many years ago, but after attending my first 7'/4in. rally in 1978,1 decided 7'/4in. was the right size).

My garden track is short — 150ft., not continuous yet and consists mainly of 15ft curves, which however do not seem to cause any problems except for the obvious speed limitation. My original driving truck was a 'quickie' (22 hours including painting) — a standard Roger Marsh slate truck, but I found the outside foot-rests somewhat dangerous and the general configuration anatomically excruciating. I am now nearing completion of a tailor-made truck with internal footwells whose design is the result of much experimenting with wooden mock-ups etc. This truck is very comfortable: If you consider that details of this would be of interest to members via the News, I should be pleased to oblige." [We await these with interest — Ed.)

S. M. Bennett wrote, (enclosing an excellent photo) to say that he nas now completed his "Charles" — a 7'/4in. gauge model of the Penrhyn prototype. He steamed the engine on track on 27th April, just 3 years from first putting pencil to paper to start the project. If any member is interested in details of drawings etc. they should contact him at his home in Batley, Yorks.

12

1982 AGM. The latest Kay creation, a new Tinkerbell locomotive 'Lady Pauline' — they're all different!

'Tiny' A. Challons Romulus on the Harrow and Wembley S.M.F. portable track at London Transport Museum. Covent Garden.

13

Society visit to the East Herts. Miniature Railway at Van Hages Garden Centre 1982.

Ian Holder with his recently completed 'Hunslet' 0-4-OT at Maiden fitted with the Briggs type boiler described in News No.23.

14

ECHILLS WOOD RAILWAY

The Echills Wood Railway is operated by a group of Midlands 7'/4in. gauge enthusiasts and takes its name from a small copse on the National Agricultural Centre, the last fragment of the old Echills Wood which once covered the whole site and is mentioned as far back as the Domesday Book. The group has been associated with the NAC since the beginnings of the Town & Country Festival, first held in August 1972. Temporary layouts were operated at the first three Festivals, after which permission was given to build a permanent line on the Showground. Construction began at Christmas 1974 and the line was opened in stages between April 1975 and April 1976. It consists of a main line from Harvesters station to Echills Wood and a circuit around the wood itself. Harvesters is situated opposite the former Echills Farm, now developed as a Children's Farm for educational purposes, behind which are the EWR storage sheds and workshops. For public services the line operates an out-and-back run round the wood, a distance of just under half a mile, using a variety of 7'/4in. gauge locomotives and purpose-built bogie passenger cars. Over 3,000 passengers have been carried in a day.

It was a condition of being allowed to build the line that it should harmonise with its surroundings and with associated developments on the Showground. This fitted perfectly with the builders' intention of constructing a fully-fledged railway, not just a track on which to play with locomotives. Great care has been taken with all aspects of the railway, both from functional and aesthetic considerations, and correct railway practice has been followed wherever appropriate. This is the only way to arrive at a safe and efficient railway, and the same care has been taken over abstract details like operating practices, rule books and other aspects of railway operation that are lost on the average member of the general public. Thus the railway is equipped with automatic colour-light signalling interlocked with a magnetic train staff and features a level crossing with full protective road signalling operated by track circuits.

The Echills Wood Railway operates in a similar manner to the permanent agricultural units on the Showground. During major events it provides a public service as part of the Showground facilities; at other times it is a private line operated by its creators for the enjoyment of their chosen hobby, a larger and more comprehensive railway than any individual could hope to build on his own property. In furtherance of the growing interest in 7'/tin. gauge, there are regular gatherings of 7'/tin. gauge enthusiasts from all parts of the country and also from Europe. The railway is able to accommodate virtually any 7'/4in. gauge locomotive, regardless of scale.

The Echills Wood Railway is particularly happy to be associated with the Royal Agricultural Society of England, for that body played a major role in the development of the steam engine during the latter part of the nineteenth century and was the first to give publicity to the work of Sir Arthur Heywood, the pioneer of commercial 15in. gauge railways. The principles laid down by Sir Arthur for the building and operations of "minimum gauge railways" are as valid now as they were when he first published them in connection with the 1881 Royal Show, and have been followed in the construction of this railway.

15

MEMBERS SALES AND WANTS

Members advertisements are published free (if space permits) subject to the prov­iso that items offered for sale are genuine used goods and not, in any way, in competition with our fee paying advertisers who support this journal.

For Sale: Two covered bogie coaches by Tom Smith, seat up to 6 small children, £250 each. Large battery electric loco by Tom Smith, fully enclosed cab, can seat 2 adults, £700. Apply: P. Henshaw, 10 Wyke Oliver Road, Preston, Weymouth, Dorset, DT3 6BS.

PORTWAY LIGHT RAILWAY for sale. Greenly Mogul (FC issue No.20), E.M.U. and trailer car, 5 vehicles, track, etc. If not sold complete will separate. (Line described by Rodney Weaver, Issue 14). R. Rainbow, Merryhill, Portway, Nr. Upton St. Leonards, Gloucestershire (Glos. 66244).

PLEASE. . . ! When submitting matter to be considered for publication, be sure that it is typed on A4 sheets, widely line spaced. This makes life a little easier for your Editor, Production Officer and Typesetter!

HORSEPOWER DOESN'T PULL TRAINS Rodney Weaver

A common blind spot among railway enthusiasts is the distinction between "tractive effort" and "horsepower". The experts don't help much, and I suspect that some of them are none too clear about it anyway. It matters little if one armchair expert writes a little nonsense for the entertainment of another, would-be armchair expert, but anyone contemplating the design of a locomotive must be aware of the difference before they start. Having had to explain the difference to more than one prospective builder already. I feel that a few words on the subject may be of interest to the membership.

The first thing to imprint on the memory is the title of this article. It is tractive effort that propels a train, and by that I mean tractive effort and not nominal tractive effort, which is the oft-quoted and largely misleading statistic found in so many reference books. The same goes for any form of transport, even if the name is different, and a simple example from the world of aviation will demonstrate the difference between the various quantities. A Boeing 747 has four engines each of which is rated at about S0,0001b thrust. Its "nominal tractive effort" is therefore 200,0001b. Sitting at the end of the runway before take-off, its engines may be producing, say, 210,0001b thrust, which is its actual "tractive effort" at that instant. Because it is stationary, however, its "drawbar horsepower" is zero. A few moments later it is travelling at 100 mph: the tractive effort is still 210.0001b.. but the drawbar horsepower is now 56,000. At cruising altitude, the drawbar horsepower may still be 56,000 but the tractive effort will have dropped to around

16

40,0001b. At all times, it is the thrust requirement that decides the output of the engines. A locomotive behaves in exactly the same way.

Starting Effort Maximum tractive effort is exerted at the instant of starting and may be

maintained up to a certain, usually rather low speed. If there is sufficient torque available to slip the driving wheels, this starting tractive effort is obviously limited by adhesive weight and will in general be one quarter of the adhesive weight. If there is not sufficient torque to slip the wheels, as in a full-size steam locomotive, a nominal tractive effort is calculated from the leading dimensions of the locomotive. Whichever figure is used, it is obviously only nominal because no two locomotives are exactly alike and the coefficient of friction between wheel and rail varies considerable depending upon local circumstances. For obvious reasons, the nominal tractive effort should be pessimistic rather than optimistic.

As a general rule, starting tractive effort is maintained up to a speed at which the locomotive is exerting its maximum power output. Above that speed the tractive effort diminishes in proportion to speed, producing an approximate constant-power curve, until the locomotive reaches its maximum designed service speed. Beyond that, tractive effort decays rapidly up to the absolute maximum speed of which it is capable. The exact form of the tractive effort/speed curve will depend upon the type of motive power and the characteristics of the transmission if there is one. To design a locomotive one must construct a tractive effort/speed curve — not necessarily a complete one — and then design something that is capable of achieving it. By using the torque/speed curves for your chosen prime mover, it is possible to design a petrol, diesel or electric locomotive without calculating a single horsepower, and it is a brave man who calculates horsepowers in a steam locomotive anyway. So locomotive design need not be complicated by any considerations of power output as commonly expressed.

Isaac Newton In calculating the required tractive effort, another simple rule should be

observed: Isaac Newton never loses. As most miniature lines operate at speeds below those at which aerodynamic losses become significant, the dynamics of a train are a simple application of basic mechanics, largely of Newton's Laws of Motion. The starting point in these calculations is the locomotive drawbar. The drawbar pull at all times equals the resistance of the train plus the force necessary to produce acceleration. The resistance of the train is itself made up of two components, journal friction and gravitational resistance due to gradient.

Journal friction is best determined by experiment, but in the absence of precise data a figure of lOlb/ton for roller bearing stock or ISIb/ton for plain bearings is a fair starting point. If the line has sharp curves, or will work long trains around equally long curves, an additional allowance must be made for flange friction. Again, this is best determined experimentally, but otherwise double the rolling resistance to allow for it. As stated earlier, it is best to be pessimistic when calculating such things, as a locomotive with power to spare is better than one that cannot do the job at all.

Gradient resistance is simply load over gradient, or load times percentage gradient if you arc used to that method of expressing it. Thus on a 1 in 100, or 1%, gradient the resistance is 22.4lb/ton (or 201b/short ton; approximately I00N/ tonne).

1 /

What must it do? The next step is to decide just what your locomotive is supposed to do. Let us

take a simple example of a line having a ruling gradient of I in 100, and work backwards from a drawbar pull of 1001b to see what this can achieve. By assuming a rolling resistance of lOlb/ton and working to 90% of the theoretical capability, a pull of l(K)lb will

a) keep 9 tons rolling at constant speed on the level b) keep 2.7 tons rolling at constant speed up 1 in 100

Newton states that external force is needed to produce acceleration, and that such acceleration is proportional to the force. To start a train, therefore, the tractive effort must exceed the resistance by an amount sufficient to produce a reasonable acceleration. If we apply this reasoning to our hypothetical line we find that our 1001b should be able to:

e) start 5 tons and reach 5 mph in about 55 seconds d) start 2 tons and reach 5 mph in about 15 seconds e) start 2 tons up 1 in 100 and reach 5 mph in about 30 seconds.

If you consider that 30 seconds to reach 5 mph is acceptable, then the locomotive is suitable for a line on which trains are regularly started on 1 in 100. I feel it is a little too near the limit, but it would be an acceptable acceleration should a train have to stop on the gradient for some other reason. If it is felt that the ability to restart on the 1 in 100 is not important, then the locomotive could be rated at 2'/2 tons.

A point to note here is that the steepest gradient does not necessarily produce the worst case. Suppose that our line had a maximum gradient of 1 in 90 and a station on 1 in 110. If the ability to restart on 1 in 90 was not important, a locomotive of 1001b drawbar pull could take 2'/2 ton trains up it. On the other hand, it would be deficient in acceleration when starting 2'/2 tons on a 1 in 110 slope.

Tractive Effort From the drawbar pull we move on to the tractive effort produced by the

driving wheels. This is found by adding to the drawbar pull i) The journal friction of any carrying axles in the locomotive.

ii) The gravitational component of the total locomotive weight. iii) The acceleration component of the total locomotive weight.

To do this, a slightly pessimistic locomotive weight must be assumed. Let us assume that a tractive effort of 1301b will be needed. To transmit this, the locomotive must have an adhesive weight in excess of 4001b, so let us assume a total weight (including driver) of 8001b. Journal friction will be about 31b, gravitational component on 1 in 100 will be 81b and acceleration component in example (c) would be about 61b, adding up to a net resistance of 171b in the worst case. A tractive effort of 1301b would therefore be adequate, so our locomotive design requirement is for something that can sustain a tractive effort of 120-1301b up to 5 mph and 801b at 10 mph (ie 651b drawbar pull on I in 100). That looks suspiciously like a "Romulus", though not by design I hasten to add. Nevertheless, the fact that at maximum output it would be developing only 1.7 hp at 5 mph or 2.1 hp at 10 mph gives the lie to any assertion that large horsepowers are needed to work the average 7 '/dn. line. It isn't the power that matters, it is the way you use it.

18

'Gurkha' and 'Hilton Queen' double head a long train on the Porters Hil Railway

Propelling trains towards the buffers is a time of great anxiety for guards!

19

**m

A determined Dave McFarlane brings diesel 'Anne' towards the end of her run. (Photo. Len Hough)

FOR SALE NOW! under construction 7% Gauge "SWINDON" Romulus. Polished Dome, Ch imney Top & G.W.R. Style. Complete with tender. Painted in G.W.R. Green. LOCOMOTIVES!! ! in TA to 101/* Gauge built to order. STEEL BOILERS!!! Our speciality, price on application. Painting and Overhauling of all locomotives undertaken. Ring or write to us at 22 Thames Avenue, Greenmeadow, Swindon SN2 3NW or Tel. 29294.

Non Members reading this NEWS — bear in mind that the IV*" G Society is more than just this publication! ()nl\ members gel the special News of Society Events and Trade information as this is issued separately to the NEWS, Events are published in the News AFTER they have taken place.

So join up and get (he full benefits!

20

ADRIAN BUYSE gives . . . FURTHER INFORMATION ON EARLY 7V4in. GAUGE

IN THE U.S.A.

Turning now to the private builder in the United States, I discover that the first published instance of the building of a 1 '/2in. scale, 7'/tin. gauge locomotive is that attributed to William L. Daney, who constructed a 4-6-0 locomotive for operation at the Colorado State Fair. A complete description and general specifications appear in the "Modelmaker" of November, 1925. Daney's home was in Pueblo, Colorado, and the engine is lettered for his outdoor railroad — the San Isabel RR. In a subsequent issue of the "Modelmaker" (October, 1927) there is an advertisement offering for sale blueprints and castings for this 7'Ain. gauged ten-wheeler by the Model Railway Supply Co. of Pueblo, Colorado, obviously a commercial venture undertaken by Daney. Within twelve years, as we shall learn later, Daney was to expand his San Isabel Railroad operation in Pueblo.

Which gauge? In the east in Connecticut, Calvert Holt reported that he was building a

Pennsylvania Railroad K-4 class Pacific (4-6-2) locomotive in l'/2in. scale, to a gauge of 7 inches ("Modelmaker", February, 1932). He had undertaken this construction for a private customer and I presume he arrived at this gauge by simply doubling the commonly used 3'/2in. gauge of the -V^n. scale. In the following September issue (ibid.), the editor confirmed the scale and gauge when he described the specifications and test trials of this locomotive. LBSC, who had returned to England after spending a year in Holt's shop, said, in his column in the "ME" for October 20th, 1932, that Holt's 1 '/2in. scale K-4 was gauged to 7'/4in. I believe this is a mistake an Englishman could make easily since l'/iin. scale, 7'/4in. gauge had been in use in England since the first decade of this century. At any rate, we have at hand published information to document two gauges, 7in. and 7'/4in., ironically on the same locomotive!

More to the point, in the second volume of the Bergh-Purinton "The Wandering Locomotive Book" (1934), Calvert Holt has written in his own hand that the gauge should be 7 inches. This appears in a table of wheel and gauge dimensions in which live steamers of that time were requested by Purinton to indicate what was their practice. Some pages further on in this same volume, accompanying photographs of his 1 '/2in. scale PRR K-4 locomotive, Holt writes in a letter describing the engine, "Really, 7in. gauge for I'/iin. scale is correct; where the TAin. came from I don't know, but it will lead to a lot of trouble." Obviously he was unaware that the 7'/4in. gauge standard had been adopted in Great Britain several decades earlier. What would have been his great surprise, precluded by his untimely tragic demise, would be to learn that increasing the gauge to 7'/2 inches, as occurred later in the United States, would lead to greater trouble lasting until our day!

New models A contemporary reference to what is unequivocally a 7'/4in. pike appears in the

"Modelmaker" of November, 1932: It is a detailed account of "Ella Cinders", an 0-4-0 1 '/2in. scale ball-bearing locomotive built to accommodate this track gauge. Soon thereafter (1933) in the first Brotherhood of Live Steamers "The Wandering Locomotive Book", W. H. Nichols, owner and builder of the

21

locomotive, provided photographs and a description of his Hamilton and Dundee Railway in Waltham, Massachusetts, which included a 550 foot, 7'/4in. gauge layout whose eight pound rails were laid on creosoted ties (sleepers) in a gravel roadbed. Featured also was a forty foot tunnel with adequate clearance to accommodate passengers riding on the trains. The previously cited issue of the "Modelmaker" carries a similarly comprehensive account. The locomotive is still in the possession of the Latham Nichols family.

Since this is a "juice jack", and American colloquialism for an electric locomotive, some may sneer at its inclusion. However, it is a genuine railroad locomotive, and a model built to operate on 7'/4in. gauge track by Frank G. Willey, who described it in the January, 1933, "Modelmaker". No apologies are necessary for his 7'/4in. gauged road whose description appeared in the December "Modelmaker" of that same year. Another lViin. scale, 71/4in. gauge locomotive model constructed at this time is the one called "Old Ironsides", a replica of the original engine as built by Mathias Baldwin in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the year 1832. The builder, K. W. Kraft, described his model in an article appearing in the "Modelmaker" for October, 1933.

San Isabel Railway In the "Model Craftsman" for August, 1937, W. L. Daney of Pueblo,

Colorado, to whom reference was made earlier, describes his 7'/4in. gauge San Isabel Railway. This gauge, he said, had been adopted by the British, and he had found it best suited for passenger-carrying on his outdoor railway in Pueblo. Illustrating Daney's article are photographs of two locomotives he had constructed — a 4-6-0 and an 0-6-0, both of which are shown working. A heavy Pacific-type locomotive for 7'/4in. gauge is also shown at work on his San Isabel Railway; it had been lettered temporarily "Denver and Rio Grande Western" for publicity purposes. He had constructed this locomotive for F. H. Robinson of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, where in another photograph it appears on, and lettered for, his Whysall Light Railway — Robinson's garden railway in that community. This garden railway apparently changed hands, but not its name, for it next appears under the ownership of H. P. Shaw.

Spurred on by Daney's account of his locomotives and the San Isabel Railway, M. Stacey Lambeth of Alexandria, Virginia, began the construction of a 1 '/2in. scale 7'/4in. gauge Southern PS-4 4-6-2 locomotive. The builder astride the tender of this fine replica is shown in a photograph illustrating his account of the building of this locomotive in the "Model Craftsmen" for March, 1939.

Although there are no published sources, I recall two other 7'/«in. gauge locomotives that were built at about this time. I am indebted to Charles (Carl) Purinton for refreshing my memory as he last ran these locomotives in 1954. These 7'/tin. gauge locomotives were the handiwork of the late Ed Burgh of Diamond Point, New York: One was a 2-4-0 of freelance design, the other a superbly crafted 1 >/2in. scaled replica of a Pennsylvania Railroad class D-16, a 4-4-0. Prior to his demise in 1954, Bergh had started to build in 7'/4in. gauge a Buchanan New York Central and Hudson River Railroad 4-4-0 with the number 938. Bergh will be remembered for an innovation he suggested to the Brotherhood of Live Steamers — "The Wandering Locomotive Book" (1933). "The Miniature Locomotive" (Nov.-Dec. 1954) carries an account of George Lakeman's l'/zin scale 7'/4in gauge Pacific (4-6-2), built several years before this to operate on his amusement railroad in North Bellingham, Massachusetts.

22

Walt Disney Not to be overlooked was the most extensive privately-owned 7'/tin. scale

railroad on the Pacific coast. This was the outdoor railroad of that delightful animated cartoon personality, the late Walt Disney. Known as the Carolwood-Pacific, it was constructed on his estate in Beverly Hills, California, in 1950-51 and was a 2,600ft. layout. Disney's 1 '/2in. scale 7'/tin. gauge locomotive was a replica of the No. 173 of the Central Pacific Railroad, a 4-4-0 which was built in Sacramento, California in 1872. In England in 1952, Disney acquired a GWR King Class locomotive as a companion engine for operation on his pike.

LEN HOUGH reports on . . . OPEN WEEKEND AT RUNCORN

16th and 17th April 1983

As records go, the April of 1983 must rank amongst the worst on record for cold wet weather — however the one bright spot in this wet and soggy Spring was the weekend of 16th and 17th April when the Halton Miniature Railway Society again played host to visiting 7'/tin. Gauge Society members, for it was once more our good fortune that the sun shone brightly and all was well with the world and 7 '/tin. gauge railways.

Unfortunately I had to go to work on Saturday morning and it was after mid­day when I arrived by which time things were in full swing. The sights, sounds and smells of steam locomotives are an attraction which few people can resist and I was hence not surprised to find Town Park bristling with people out to enjoy the pleasures which a one mile long 7 '/tin. gauge railway has to offer. Yes, traffic was, to say the least, brisk!

The first steamer to enter Mousetrap Hall station was the beautiful "Pendennis Castle" built by Arthur Glaze for Dennis Greenwood. I am not a GWR fan myself but I have to admit that this locomotive looks and performs in a superb manner. This was the second visit by Dennis to Runcorn and we hope that he enjoyed the extra running distance we have provided since his last visit. "The Castle" certainly thrived on being given "its head". Eric Doyle was in attendance with an 0-6-0 "Romulus" type locomotive which he had on trial with intention to purchase if all went well. All seemed to go well and Eric looked satisfied with the performance. We will have to persuade him to give us the history of this loco in due course.

Ronald Kay was there with his "Hackfly" type 0-4-0T "Goliath". HMRS member Larry Harrison now takes total command of the driver's seat on this locomotive on these occasions, his appearance getting blacker by the mile.

I must now digress to let 7'/tin. Gauge members know some of the improvements which we have made this winter. Firstly, Fred Fitter's fertile grey matter and skilful fingers have produced a device which makes the unloading and loading of a 7'/tin. gauge loco a very simple and easy affair. Like so many effective devices the idea is very simple and we are trying to persuade Fred to write an article for "The News" in due course. I have often heard it said by people that the biggest drawback to building in 7'/tin. gauge is the size and weight of the locos produced together with the associated handling difficulties. Seeing Fred's unloading device in action was an ideal demonstration of how these difficulties

23

can be eliminated by producing equipment to take the strain away from the human frame.

Secondly, 7'/4in. Gauge Society members please note: we have eliminated the waiting time caused by the congestion at the approach to Mousetrap Hall station by allowing those locos not wishing to call there, to reverse along the oval side of the triangle through the points then forward down the triangle on to the main line; the whole monoeuvre being under the control of one of Fred Gitter's electric signals monitored from the control desk at the station. Coal and water, if required can be taken on board at the triangle.

Back to our super Saturday; John Martell arrived with his Hunslet "Joanna" but on this occasion was plagued with difficulty caused by a loose eccentric. Fred's unloading device allowed access for easy repair by Geoff Martell (now of TV Blue Peter fame) who, despite being dribbled on by "Joanna', managed to secure the offending eccentric, and all was well thereafter.

Dave Macfarlane's lovely petrol hydraulic loco "Anne" as always gave a faultless display but it seems no open weekend at Runcorn would be complete without Keith Parkinsons "Tich". This diminutive loco has run more miles on HMRS metals than any other steamer. Our chairman, John Goulden, was eagerly awaiting the expected delivery of his "Tich" from the manufacturer, the intention being to have a double headed "Tich" spectacular but, alas, much to cverybodies disappointment delivery did not occur.

Sunday saw the early arrival of Les Nelson with the now famous "Waldenburg". On this occasion Les came complete with video camera and recorder to video-tape his valiant exploits. Keith Parkinson and family stayed on for the Sunday running, "Tich" being driven by young James Carter most of the day. Throughout the weekend our club locos "Norton Priory School" and "The Flying Pea Can" (actually the Class 20) provided a non stop passenger service and the ladies "bless 'em" provided their usual supply of gastronomic delights to make the weekend a great success.

TRADE TOPICS By Mike Sharp

The New Season This year's ME Exhibition passed with some new faces of interest to us all in the gauge, plus, of course, all the usual people with some new ideas to offer us. Maxitrack took a stand this year to show off their new steam loco kit. This little loco has been in the pipe-line for some time now and although not all the comments I heard about it were favourable, the consensus of opinion was that the diminutive 0-4-0 loco was a well-presented and well-designed kit for the person with only a spanner in his tool-kit. All the parts are finished machined and require only the minimum of assembly type work to complete a handsome little engine. Another new face at the Exhibition was the Tywyn Model Locomotive Co. who were there to show their Tal-y-llyn loco "Edward Thomas", for which they sell the drawings and castings. Although one of our members commented that it is not quite a scale model, it seemed to me to be as good as you can do with a loco that has suffered so many alterations during its lifetime. The drawings are well presented and have the majority of the required information on them, while the castings were of good standard, although not as well finished as they might have

*'i

24

been. Also from the same firm come complete sets of castings and woodwork for a slate wagon and a small coach which appealed to me (who has no time) as they presented a neat, Airfix-like approach to rolling stock.

You may recall my plea to you for data and ideas on some boiler fitting gaps in the range available from our suppliers, and I am glad to report that, as a result of this request, Fyne Fort Fittings have put into production various large (i.e. -Yum. and '/iin.) fittings like clacks, valves and line connectors all of which were selling very well at the ME Exhibition. Any more ideas?

Every year at about this time I get out my diary for the summer and start filling in all the meets in our hobby, and this year I have been pleased to discover a book published by Ian Allen called "Steam Eight Three", which lists all the public lines open throughout the season together with all the information on other steam haunts from Lands End to John O'Groats.

PORTERS HILL RAILWAY By Mike Taylor

Sunday, April 24th, saw the start of the new season on this well-known, but secluded, Worcestershire line. Although the weather forecast was dreadful, apart from one sharp shower, it managed to be quite a good steaming day with some moments of sunshine. The most obvious new addition to the railway was the partly-built new signal box which, when finished, will occupy a dominant position at Porters Hill Station: It remains to be seen if the original purpose of the building is not supplemented by other activities of the regulars . . .!

The doubtful honour of "first test train" of the season befell the writer and his Hunslet which was built in 1981 by Severn-Lamb Ltd., for a member of a pop-group called "Jethro Tull". It was originally named "Baz" and sported a garish Royal-purple livery, unbecoming of the famous Yorkshire stable. This has now been rectified by repainting in LMS maroon, matched to a pre-war Hornby O-gauge Compound locomotive which sets an accurate and historical colour-match, and lined out in red with a new name — "Dinorwic" as Port Class No.2. It is felt that this new name complements the PHR's first engine "Penrhyn", which must be known to many members and is one of the first Roger Marsh built Hunslcts.

Yet another Hunslet was next in steam, "Lady Jean" (depicted in News No.24) which was brought over by a group of members from Walsall who seemed to have an enjoyable day. A steady number of passengers attended during the day and the highlight perhaps was a couple of runs of super-power in the form of trains triple-headed with all three Hunslets, and certainly the drivers appeared to be in their element. Finally, "Gurkha", the pride of the line and the most powerful engine was steamed, gleaming brightly after a lot of hard work by the Rogers' family to remove the winter's grime. Fittingly, the day was brought to a close by a special family affair when "Gurkha" (ably driven by Seamus Rogers) hauled the line's new 4-wheeled truck containing his father (with just his head showing through the lid) round the line to the amusement of us all! Further steam-ups for the season are planned at regular intervals and are eagerly awaited.

25

CORRESPONDENCE (Correspondence is welcomed and published as the opinion of the writer,

not necessarily of the Editor.)

SUPERHEATING

Sir, I was very interested to read Rodney Weaver's views on superheating in the

"7'/4 News". I have held similar views for about 15 years now, though slightly at variance with his. During the late sixties I was deeply involved with the Harlington Locomotive Society and was their track superintendent at the time. I ran a one inch scale Queensland Railway's three foot six gauge Pacific with a five inch diameter boiler and a four and a quarter inch square grate. Just prior to doing an important run I blew a superheater and decided, as a quick temporary repair, to make up steam pipes direct to the cylinders and remove the superheater altogether. I had expected the loco to perform adequately if slightly down in performance but was most surprised to find that it was not only livelier but much more free-steaming. I have never replaced that superheater. So you see the principle doesn't only apply to "the average large TAin. gauge locomotive" he was talking about, but seemingly to everything from 2ft. to 3'/2in.

A few of us got down to trying to deduce just what had happened. The boiler had 14 '/2in. OD tubes and 3 lin. superheater flues each containing 2 superheater return tubes of '/(in. OD. As you say, it is impossible to sweep these flues so they were totally blocked with ash. We surmised that:

(1) Blocked flues meant no gas flow so there could be no heat transfer so there could not be any superheating anyway.

(2) No gas flow meant there could not be any transfer of heat through the walls of the superheater flues into the boiler water, therefore considerably reducing the total tube heating surface of the boiler.

(3) Reduction in the total flue area meant that air flow/gas flow through the grate was reduced, resulting in the fire not being drawn up so well, and therefore not so bright, producing considerably less radiant heat to the firebox.

(4) Gas flow through the remaining tubes was probably so fast, due to the reduced sectional area, that there was little heat transfer through the tubes into the water. This theory being backed up by the fact that the smokebox did seem to get very hot indeed, much more so than other locos at the club, indicating that the smoke-box gas temperature was very high. The apparent smokebox temperature did not appreciably reduce when the elements were removed, but I put that down to the superheater flues being much too large for their length, allowed a hot "core" of gas to get through.

Due to the water level being allowed to drop too low the tubes were damaged and I had to retube it. It now has 18 7/16in. tubes, smaller diameter to increase heat transfer and wider spaced than before as the old ones were found to be completely furred up between the tubes at the combustion chamber end. Three of us are now making three standard gauge tank engines for 7'/4in. gauge. They are

26

2-4-OT suburban passenger tanks of the MSJ & A, and will have saturated steam boilers as well as other features at variance with the LBSC "words and music". I think that is where all the trouble emanates from basically. The writings of LBSC in "Model Engineer", whilst putting the hobby on its feet, were dogmatic in the extreme and became the "Bible" to every model steam loco builder. Even today to suggest that LBSC, or his disciple Martin Evans, could possibly have got something wrong, is looked on as being heresy or blasphemy or something, and I think you will find that it was LBSC who was the great champion of superheating. I happen to be one of the heathen, one of the unbelievers who is big headed enough to think there might be another way to do things. On our three locos we are fitting our own variation on Stephenson's link motion, for instance.

Getting back to boilers, I am not so sure that there is much steam at all produced round the tubes. I am convinced that virtually all the steam is produced in the radiant heat part of the system, the firebox and the roof of the combustion chamber if the boiler has one. The barrel of the boiler is a sort of pressurised feed water heater supplying the steam producing firebox, and therefore it is much better to put feed water in at the front of the barrel than in the vicinity of the firebox. I think now that the main function of the tubes is to adequately carry away the hot gasscs and only secondarily to pass any heat remaining in them to the water. One or two square inches more firebox radiant heat area and you can afford to chuck away the tubes as a heating surface. I understand that recently some of the lads in west London were doing just that, building boilers with perhaps as few as half a dozen tubes, just so long as there is enough cross section for the draught. In my view that is taking the idea to extremes because, as I said before, I think the tubes perform a very useful function as water heaters.

If you have any more information on this subject I would be pleased to hear it, either directly, or through the pages of "7'/4 News". More information can only help people like me to get the design right, or at least improve the odds a little; ending up with a duff boiler is not only embarrassing but bloody expensive.

Roy Foster

BOOK REVIEW

"The Pleasures of Railways" by Brian Hollingsworth, Allen Lane £6.95p. Our distinguished member has again succeeded in writing a most readable and

attractive book, and so soon after his outstanding Biography of LBSC, as to make one marvel at his energy.

The book takes as its structure the ordinary experiences of a rail passenger who, whether or not he notices them, makes contact with many aspects of the railway from his initial investigation of the timetable, through motive power, termini, "Specials", trainspotters, permanent way, dining cars, sleepers to race records and accidents. The workings of each department are explained by the author, drawing on his wide experience as a professional railwayman, and illuminated by countless anecdotes drawn from the same and other sources. These are revealing of the humour and character of those involved in running railways, some of whom were "characters" whose exploits and sayings were providentially recorded.

A good book for the fireside, the bedside, or perhaps above all, for a railway journey.

27

EDWARD THOMAS No. 4 TALYLLYN RAILWAY Drawings and Castings. S.A.E. details

TV*" gauge V* full size

Also building 7'/4in.g. N.G. V3 full size

DOUGAL W e l s h p o o l & L lan fa i r R ly . «|

S.A.E. for further details'.

G.E.R. 0-4-0 ST BUILT BY NHILSON A CO. I 874

7'A" gauge S.A.E. details

TYWYN MODEL LOCOMOTIVE CO. PENDRE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, TYWYN, GWYNEDD. TYWYN (0654) 710583

INTRODUCING

* PEARL' 0-4-2 KERR STUART

SADDLE TANK

Fully machined kit

£ 1 9 8 0 + V A T 50p CATALOGUE

MAXITRAK Rothiemay'Offham Road West Mailing Kent

IX

*"*^*i* nil's in * * <

MARDYKE 71 4in.g. RAILBUS

on HST Auto-Tilt Bogies for the private miniature railway produced with the co-operation

of Brel petrol or battery electric £1,220 plus VAT (batteries extra). Railbus trailer £680 plus VAT.

Details of 7 1 - l i ng , and lOV^in.g. miniature railway equipment from

^ ^ ^ ^ Mardyke Miniature Railways Ltd. K^l J No 3 Factory Lambs Lane f i l l Rainham Essex

RM 13 9XL Tel: Rainham (04027) 54618 Comprehensive catalogue £2.00 refunded with 1st order.

From the 7V4 in gauge specialists > Drawings and castings for 7'/4 in gauge

Hunslet locomotive. • Track, pointwork and point levers

Station signs, gradient posts, and miniature station seats.

• Locomotives built to order. • Overhaul, repairs and machining

service. • Scale chaired bullhead track

Send 5 Op for full catalogue

Milner Engineering C h e s t e r L i m i t e d rVlodel a n d L igh t E n g i n e e r s The Old School, Main Road, Higher Kinnertorf, Chester CH4 9AJ

Tel: (0244) 660791

ft

29

BEER AND PLEASURE GARDEN Ride the NARROW GAUGE RAILWAY through the exciting new TUNNEL cut deep into the hillside overlooking the fishing village of Beer. The PLEASURE GARDENS offer facilities for relaxation and fun and includes a PUTTING GREEN, SIMPLIFIED CROQUET and CHILDRENS CORNER. See the EXHIBITION of MODEL RAILWAYS have snacks at the STATION BUFFET and luncheons in 'ORION' PULLMAN CAR RESTAURANT.

A IUMil PRESENTATION Beer, Nr Seaton, Devon Seaton 21542

^iodelratna

SHOPS.CAR PARKS& ION I I S

Exhibition open all year round. Out­door amenities and 'Orion' open until early Oeiober. including Summer Bunk Holidays and Sundays from 24th July-4th Sept. IOam-5.30pm. Sat. morn. I()um-I IK)pm.

50

SIMPLICITY Passenger hau l ing . Nar row gauge, Battery powered Diesel loco £'7C\(\

SIMPLICITY' in fully machined, part

assembled KIT-FORM £(\f\i\

7 \ in rolling stock and track Send 30p stamps tor complete catalogue to MAXI IHAK Rothiamay' . O H t u m Road. West Mailing. Kant ME19 6RG

Talaphona I062.?) 812SS8

+ VAT

L. C. JAY & SON LTD 19-21 OAK STREET, NORWICH, NR3 3AU

Telephone Norwich 0603 28798

Castings for "Dart" by Martin Evans

Castings and Drawings for G.W.R. 1101 Class Dock Tank by D. Stockings

Castings and Drawings for B.R. Class 7 "Britannia" by J. G. Butt and D. Stockings

ENQUIRIES WELCOME

S.A.E. for Lists please

Authentic Railway

Colours As supplied to the National Railwav Museum and Preservation Societies.

Our 8 page catalogue includes information on dates, usages, specifications, etc

We have a full range of full size Railway Crests

Send 20p * SAB for paint and crest catalogue, together with price list

PRECISION PAINTS CO. LTD. Exmouth Street Cheltenham, Glos GL51 5HR

Telephone: (0242) 29878 Out paints are available from all leading Model Shops

Trade enquiries welcome

!l

Plenty of activity during a pause in the proceedings at the 1982 AGM Runcorn. (Photo. Len Hough)

* * * * » •

Printed by N. R, Print Design Ltd., Cheltenham.