🚀 go-pugleaf

Terry Flynn wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Greg Rudd" <grudd@usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:cp12ia$or4$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
>> Terry Flynn wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Greg Rudd" <grudd@usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
>> > news:com8oc$p0h$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
>> >> The know all Terry Flynn wrote:
>> >> > "Greg Rudd" <grudd@usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
>> >> > news:co6srn$i4k$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
>> >> >> Terry Flynn wrote:
>> >> >> > "Greg Rudd" <grudd@usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:cmsbo1$lkt$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
>> >> >> >> Terry Flynn wrote:
>> >> >> >> > "Greg Rudd" <grudd@usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:cma1sv$29u$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
>> >> >> >> >> Mark Newton wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Terry Flynn wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Whats the next thing he will be telling us.  That the classic
>> >> > american
>> >> >> >> >> balwin 4-4-0 never ran in NSW.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What a Baldwin 4-4-0 has to do with this thread I don't know.
>> >> >> >> What I was making the comment you
>> >> >> >> > I do know
>> >> >> >> > that the Baldwin 4-4-0 locomotives were a poor second compared
> to
>> >> >> > English
>> >> >> >> > 4-4-0
>> >> >> >> > designs which the NSWGR had.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I wouldn't necessarily say that. In certain areas the quality of
>> >> >> >> the workmanship and the materials used in construction of the
>> >> >> >> British
>> >> > engines
>> >> >> >> in particular the 12 class were far superior to the Baldwins. As
>> >> >> > performers
>> >> >> >> they did do well in their early days with quite a few speed and
>> >> >> >> load records to their credit and had some good design features
> that
>> > suited
>> >> > New
>> >> >> >> South Wales conditions down to the ground, such as long smoke
> boxes
>> >> >> >> and large grate areas. Another thing was that the Balwins were
> far
>> >> >> >> lighter
>> >> > on
>> >> >> >> the track than what the British engines were.  I think that
>> >> >> >> given
>> > the
>> >> >> >> choice of working one of the Balwins or the 12 class in their
>> > original
>> >> >> > form
>> >> >> >> I think you would want to work in the far more comfortable cab
>> >> >> >> of
>> > the
>> >> >> >> Baldwin.  What would have been the most spectaular of all the
>> > Baldwins
>> >> > to
>> >> >> >> see in operation would have been the big J's which would have
>> >> >> >> pushed
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> NSWGR loading gauge to its sheer limits. But as to the quality
>> >> >> >> of
>> > the
>> >> >> >> finished product Beyer-Peocock built a far better loco than what
>> >> > Baldwin
>> >> >> >> did at the time.  But then you have to understand that the
> Balwin's
>> >> > that
>> >> >> >> were built to last for a certain period of time and no longer.
>> > While
>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> Brits built their export locos to give the longest possible
>> >> >> >> life.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In the above chapter, are you saying the Baldwin 4-4-0's had the
>> >> >> > load
>> >> > and
>> >> >> > speed records or are you talking about the later J class.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Against other passenger engines in use at the time the U with a set
> of
>> >> >> Jackson and Sharp cars beat the existing record for Sydney-Eskbank
> and
>> >> >> return by aprox 10-15 min.  With the equalised design of both the
>> > leading
>> >> >> bogie and driving wheels caused far less wear and tear on the track
>> > than
>> >> >> the ridgid British designs that were in use on the NSWGR at the
> time.
>> > As
>> >> > to
>> >> >> the both the little and big J's they for their time totaly changed
> the
>> >> >> way
>> >> >> freight  trains  were operated in this state.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Goods trains back then.
>> >> >
>> >> > So did the earlier 0-6-0's, the later 57 class and 40 class. .
>> >> >
>> >> >> > If the Baldwin
>> >> >> > 4-4-0 is lighter, then it can not pull more than a heavier 12
> class
>> >> >> > locomotive.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Are you talking in theory or in practice??  As a loco with a
>> >> >> certain tractive effort with a small grate and evaporate surface
>> >> >> area is not going to produce that tractive effort over a long
>> >> >> period of time
>> > compared
>> >> >> to a steam engine with a large grate and evaporative surface area
>> >> >> rated at the same tractive effort.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Theory and practice are consistent. If the wheels are slipping, the
>> >> > rest is academic. If the US 4-4-0's were so good they would have
> either
>> > ordered
>> >> > more or copied the design and made them in the UK or Australia. They
>> >> > did neither.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> They were brought as an experiment.  What did impress as far as Per
>> >> way
>> > were
>> >> concered was their equalised suspension. What do you thing would be
>> >> harder
>> >> on the track a 12 class or a Balwin 4-4-0.  Probably the main reason
> was
>> >> a thing called loyalty to the mother country.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That was a factor, but it would not stop them copying the design if it
> was
>> > better. US patients did not count inside the British Empire back then.
>> > Victoria copied many a US design. The US 4-4-0's overall was not as
>> > good as
>> > the  C79's (Z12). From what I can see is all NSW 4-4-0 tender
> locomotives
>> > had equalised locomotive suspension, and I doubt the U class grate area
>> > was much bigger than the C79, if at all. The U105 not only had less
> weight
>> > on its driving axles, it also had less tractive effort than a C79. The
>> > U105 class speed records would have quickly been over taken by the UK
>> > designed 4-4-0's, and was probably compared to the earlier 2-4-0 G23
> (Z14)
>> > class of 1865 and easily surpassed by the inside cylindered
> D255(Z15),D261
>> > and D334(Z16) of the early 1880's with their 6' driving wheels.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> > The long smoke boxes were not much better on these earlier
>> >> >> > engines, because on later designs our engineers continued with UK
> 
>> >> >> > practice.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is such a stupid statement.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's a historically accurate statement.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you care to note that a number of 12 class and 17 class engines
> for
>> >> > that
>> >> >> matter had their smoke boxes extended so as to prevent tubes
> blocking
>> >> > under
>> >> >> hard steaming. Dont be stupid or are you just saying this to shit
> stir
>> >> >> hoping to get a response from Mark Newton.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not all 12 and 17 got the modification. No doubt it is better to
>> >> > have
> a
>> >> > longer smoke box, but clearly the economic benefit was not great,
>> >> > considering the extra cost  to build the longer smoke box, and the
>> >> > distances the locomotives needed to work between depots at the time
> of
>> >> > manufacture.
>> >>
>> >> In the case of the 17's they were known for being hard on the track
>> >> and
>> >> difficult loco's to handle.  The reasion that the program probably
> wasn't
>> >> continued was because of a thing called the P class.
>> >
>> > Compared to what? The Z17 again is much better than the U105 class,
>> > it's also newer.
>> > The Z12 is the locomotive that the U105 was in comparison with. The P
>> > is another
>> > British design success, again ignoring US design practice.
>>
>> Yes you are right in the case of the P's they were the best thing to come
>> out of an English builder at the time, but the Baldwin O class was no
>> shit heap either but they had some quality control problems which I might
>> add were fixed at Baldwin's expense.
> 
> When delivered they were rubbish. Terrible quality control, and when fixed
> no better compared to the UK designed P. That's 2 passenger locomotives
> where the UK workmanship and design was superior to the US Baldwin.
> 
What the O's as delivered had over the P class was the extended smoke box a
better cab for the driver and a bogie tender which I might add the P class
did get latter in life. But I dont think in earlier days tube blocking was
much of a problem for them but that being said some of the class did get
extended smoke boxes pre-superheating.  But I do agree that the P was the
better of the two ( I have never said anything to the sudgest otherwise)
but that being said if it had the better cab bogie tender and long smoke
box it would be a no contest. 

Indeed CR had problems with Baldwin when they were building their P class
copies.  And the other problem IIRC was with some cylinder castings with CR
P class.  

>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The same goes for frames and cabs, sticking with UK practice,
>> >> >> > which produced a lower maintenance cab and stronger mainframes.
>> >>
>> >> Very interesting comment why was it that the P class had a number of
>> >> frame rebuilds during its life???
>> >
>> > They had a long and hard life. The original design was when average
> speeds
>> > and loads were lower.  The original frames lasted over 30 years before
>> > cracking. 

So the class really was at the end of their economic life by the mid 1920's 

>> > If it had bar frames it would have had more rebuilds, 
>> > their not as strong. Note the rebuilds were new plate frames, not bar
>> > frames, and some retained the original plate frame design, possibly the
>> > original frames.
>> >
>>
>> Remember Bar frames were used by British builders especially stuff that
> was
>> destined for Africa.
> 
> And plenty of plate framed locomotives also ended up in Africa. Proves
> nothing. No point comparing apples and oranges, which is what you keep
> trying to do.
> 
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> >> > As for
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > J class, when a new 2-8-0 was designed by the NSWGR, the
>> >> >> > engineers
>> > said
>> >> >> > the T was a
>> >> >> > combination of  the best  UK and US ideas. Again it had a steel
> cab,
>> >> >> > not
>> >> > a
>> >> >> > high maintenance to hot for NSW wooden cab.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes but would *you* want to work in an exposed cab like what the 12
>> > class
>> >> >> was when introduced??? I think not.
>> >
>> > Yes I would. It's easier to get warm than to try to cool down.
>> >
>>
>> Then you really are an idiot.
> 
> Again you ignore facts. If you are cold you can put warm clothing on. If
> you are hot you can't do much about it.
> 
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By stating the above opinion on loco cabs you really show your lack
> of
>> >> >> knowledge on the conditions that railwaymen of the time had to
>> >> >> operate.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Clearly the crews in the big J thought being in fresh air was
>> >> > preferable to a
>> >> > hot wooden cab. I refer to the classic picture of a big J, with the
>> > driver
>> >> > sitting on the window ledge, most of his body outside the cab, or
>> >> > the other photographs, with the front door of the cab open when in
>> > operation.
>> >> > Clearly in NSW it's hot on the footplate allot of the time. At the
> end
>> > of
>> >> > the day, the design engineer decided on what cab design would be
> built,
>> >> > not the locomotive driver.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And that was part of the English mindset.  We cant give the workers
>> >> any comforts.
>> >
>> > The Baldwin cabs did not improve the comfort level of the crew most of
> the
>> > time. Only in extreme cold weather for NSW would they improve harsh
>> > working conditions.
>> >
>>
>> Hold on didn't the Balwin Cabs have a proper seat in them???
> 
> Not much use for the fireman on the tender. I doesn't look like there is
> enough room between the cab side and the boiler, any way, I'm talking
> about the cab not a seat, again you change the subject.

LoL Havent worked out the relationship between the seat and the cab yet??

-- 
Spam Bait

�john.howard@aph.gov.au
minister@transport.nsw.gov.au
alanjones@2gb.com