Today on the WGLR

I look forward to reading, but it'll be a couple of months before it gets down to this part of the world I suppose (sniff). Almost makes me rethink whether to get a sub - now, if I jut had one of those Apple thingies instead of this Windows heap ....... I've been pondering the Aussie-isation of my 2-4-2 (whatever that might mean - probably something superficially like the Puffing Billy 2-6-2s) and now certainly have some inspiration!
 
Having read the article Mel. I can only say that not only are you a great exponent of modelling and creating a lifelike layout, you are also a pretty darn good writer too!. I buy 'Garden Rail' even though my layout and interest is 98% American and also a mix of scales (1:20.3 -1:29) as it is really good to see 'really' British themed layouts with or without real steam.
Nice one mate
 
Thanks for the very kind words guys, really appreciate it. :thumbup:

As mentioned above, the search for a crew for No.5 has resulted in a couple of promotions from within the ranks of the WGLR.

Young Gareth has worked his way up from the general maintenance gang to become a fireman. He is seen acquiring another shovel-full of best Welsh Steam from the bunker. I like to try and put one member of the crew facing backwards on locos that are likely to run in both directions. It feels a little safer when running bunker first somehow. :bigsmile:

f47fe5e269d04d27b1115e236714e6d7.jpg


Dick The Trolley used to be a porter at Gooey. He paid quite a price to become a driver, having one arm sawn off and re-attached to enable him to reach the controls.

02c573ede4ac45cc89f6ed9ad9ceb154.jpg
 
Mel.......
He may have worked his way up but it may not be driving that he is doing here.......more of steaming himself up :laugh::bleh::bleh:


24adb0dde5ff488eb4d543714118cfbb.jpg
 
A question for you died in the wool train buffs. As per my history post ref the WD supplied 0-4-0 Porter shunter (Hank the Yank). Could it be possible that this loco was an oil burner rather than coal? I'm just looking at a couple of scenarios I can build into the re-born RAF camp and some extra traffic possibilities. I don't mind stretching possibilities and am all for rule 8, but is this within the realms of possibility? Would there be any visible equipment that would need adding to the loco?
 
I do believe that they were oilers, Mel.
 
yb281 said:
A question for you died in the wool train buffs. As per my history post ref the WD supplied 0-4-0 Porter shunter (Hank the Yank). Could it be possible that this loco was an oil burner rather than coal?
Click to expand...

I know that the Ffestiniog locos run on oil, but can be converted to run on coal.

So I guess it's feasible....
 
yb281 said:
A question for you died in the wool train buffs. As per my history post ref the WD supplied 0-4-0 Porter shunter (Hank the Yank). Could it be possible that this loco was an oil burner rather than coal? I'm just looking at a couple of scenarios I can build into the re-born RAF camp and some extra traffic possibilities. I don't mind stretching possibilities and am all for rule 8, but is this within the realms of possibility? Would there be any visible equipment that would need adding to the loco?
Click to expand...
After WWII there was a plan to convert over 1000 main line locos in Britain to oil firing. In practise less than 100 were converted before the plan was abandoned due, according to some sources, to fears over the cost to the balance of payments of imported oil over home produced coal.
No reason why Ffynon Garew couldn't have used some of this equipment to oil fire their locos, less fire risk as no exhaust sparks. If they wanted to have good brakes on their goods trains they may have gone for air brakes at the same time. ;)
The only visible difference would be a fuel tank in the bunker rather than a pile of coal. Take a look at pictures of WHR and FR locos in both coal and oil fired states, several have been converted to oil and many of these back to coal again. I doubt you'll see much difference
 
My thoughts for what they are worth are that it is feasable , but doubtful. Why switch to oil when there is an abundence of coal ? Also why change just 1 loco ? Unless of course it is an experiment to see if it was feasable :confused::confused:
 
Neil Robinson said:
yb281 said:
A question for you died in the wool train buffs. As per my history post ref the WD supplied 0-4-0 Porter shunter (Hank the Yank). Could it be possible that this loco was an oil burner rather than coal? I'm just looking at a couple of scenarios I can build into the re-born RAF camp and some extra traffic possibilities. I don't mind stretching possibilities and am all for rule 8, but is this within the realms of possibility? Would there be any visible equipment that would need adding to the loco?
Click to expand...
After WWII there was a plan to convert over 1000 main line locos in Britain to oil firing. In practise less than 100 were converted before the plan was abandoned due, according to some sources, to fears over the cost to the balance of payments of imported oil over home produced coal.
No reason why Ffynon Garew couldn't have used some of this equipment to oil fire their locos, less fire risk as no exhaust sparks. If they wanted to have good brakes on their goods trains they may have gone for air brakes at the same time. ;)
The only visible difference would be a fuel tank in the bunker rather than a pile of coal. Take a look at pictures of WHR and FR locos in both coal and oil fired states, several have been converted to oil and many of these back to coal again. I doubt you'll see much difference
Click to expand...

Watching a video I borrowed from our MRC library recently, I noticed that the Fireman of the Double Fairlie didn't so much shovel coal, but more turn the wick up as the loco started!

Or at least he turned the tap for the oil....
 
garrymartin said:
My thoughts for what they are worth are that it is feasable , but doubtful. Why switch to oil when there is an abundence of coal ? Also why change just 1 loco ? Unless of course it is an experiment to see if it was feasable :confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Aha well, following on from Neil's excellent post I've been scouring the net and come up with some interesting results - well I say interesting ....................... :rolf:

Anyhoo, seems that the first experiments with oil burning came about around the turn of the 19th/20th Centuries both in the USA and on the Great Eastern Railway in GB (an area with an absolute abundance of coal?). Also, the GWR converted 18 locos to oil during WW2 as a means of saving precious coal supplies at a time when saving coal was a matter of national urgency. So it is starting to make some sort of sense to me, especially when combined with Neil's suggestion re fire precautions in potentially dangerous environments (fire precautions also being the driving force behind the oil conversions on several Welsh NG lines as touched on by Gizzy).

I even came across some interesting (?) operational procedures. For instance - an oil fire obviously doesn't need building up like a coal one and it's entirely possible to get the fire up to temp almost immediately, but this can cause a lot of damage and has to be carefully monitored. Also the fact that the Ffestiniog had to have some special paint made for Linda's smokebox (and all the other conversions subsequently) as the traditional stuff couldn't stand up to the increased temperatures associated with oil burning.

So I'm thinking - A static oil tank for the RAF site and an oil tanker for rail deliveries? (the WGLR already has a tank wagon, but that's for delivering TVO to the farmers). Of course it's a complete co-incidence that I've currently got 2 Hartland oil tanks in the workshop. :bigsmile::bigsmile:
 
Indeed the UKs Great Eastern Railway had oil burning locomotives including their legendary Claud Hamiltons - this for them was cheaper than shipping coal from the north etc as GER had its own Gas Works near its Stratford Depot (now the site of the Olympic Park) and so the locos used the waste oil which orginally was disposed of into the River Lea (which the local authorities was rather unhappy about). Eventually the locos was converted back to coal burning as coal got cheaper along with the introduction of electric coach lighting in later years.
 
Cracking article Mel.

The missus even read it last night and was well impressed. She gave me a b******ing for not getting my buildings finished cos yours looked so good, but I took that as authorisation to devote more spare time to the railway. :thumbup::thumbup:

Where does "young Gareth" the fireman hail from. Anyone I know?
 
yb281 said:
So I'm thinking - A static oil tank for the RAF site and an oil tanker for rail deliveries? (the WGLR already has a tank wagon, but that's for delivering TVO to the farmers). Of course it's a complete co-incidence that I've currently got 2 Hartland oil tanks in the workshop. :bigsmile::bigsmile:
Click to expand...
Mel, what grade of oil does the depot plan to use? If it's the thicker cheaper stuff the tanks and bunkers would need some form of heating. No problem with large loco sheds or ships where there are almost invariably several boilers in steam to supply steam heating and you may wish to model this. On the F.R. they opted for the more expensive, lighter, oil as used in their diesel locos; only having one grade of fuel and not needing preheaters made life easier. Combustion on the system they opted for needs something to atomise the fuel, on the road the locos own steam is used. Lighting up from cold was, and still is, performed by using an air line from an electrically driven compressor to atomise the oil until the loco has built up sufficient steam to change over.
 
Neil Robinson said:
yb281 said:
So I'm thinking - A static oil tank for the RAF site and an oil tanker for rail deliveries? (the WGLR already has a tank wagon, but that's for delivering TVO to the farmers). Of course it's a complete co-incidence that I've currently got 2 Hartland oil tanks in the workshop. :bigsmile::bigsmile:
Click to expand...
Mel, what grade of oil does the depot plan to use? If it's the thicker cheaper stuff the tanks and bunkers would need some form of heating. No problem with large loco sheds or ships where there are almost invariably several boilers in steam to supply steam heating and you may wish to model this. On the F.R. they opted for the more expensive, lighter, oil as used in their diesel locos; only having one grade of fuel and not needing preheaters made life easier. Combustion on the system they opted for needs something to atomise the fuel, on the road the locos own steam is used. Lighting up from cold was, and still is, performed by using an air line from an electrically driven compressor to atomise the oil until the loco has built up sufficient steam to change over.
Click to expand...
Mmmm,sounds like a connection to the station boiler room might be in order Neil? :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom