Today on the WGLR

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...

I don't think it would be absolutely necessary to convert your loco to oil firing unless you want to.
BR used steam locos to haul oil trains usually only needing a barrier wagon between the loco and the tanks.
At Stanlow, the signals were all oil lit as were the tail lights on the trains themselves. The only time special procedures were followed (other than no naked flames) was when the LPG plant opened and cigarette lighters, matches and mobile phones had to be locked in a box provided before the train (diesel hauled) or staff could enter the LPG sidings.
 
oberinntalbahn said:
At the risk of upsetting the executive committee of the NURW (Wetton Gooey branch), it is quite feasible to single man a small oil fired loco. In fact, I think the new(ish) oil fired SLM 2/3 NG Rack tanks run with just a driver.
Click to expand...
Yes I was thinking that Nigel. The NURW may not be involved in this issue if the military provide the crew ala Bicester etc.?
 
flyingsignalman said:
I don't think it would be absolutely necessary to convert your loco to oil firing unless you want to.
BR used steam locos to haul oil trains usually only needing a barrier wagon between the loco and the tanks.
At Stanlow, the signals were all oil lit as were the tail lights on the trains themselves. The only time special procedures were followed (other than no naked flames) was when the LPG plant opened and cigarette lighters, matches and mobile phones had to be locked in a box provided before the train (diesel hauled) or staff could enter the LPG sidings.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really thinking in those terms mate, just an excuse to add the occasional tanker to the pick-up goods and add some more interest to shunting the RAF depot. sidings.
 
yb281 said:
oberinntalbahn said:
At the risk of upsetting the executive committee of the NURW (Wetton Gooey branch), it is quite feasible to single man a small oil fired loco. In fact, I think the new(ish) oil fired SLM 2/3 NG Rack tanks run with just a driver.
Click to expand...
Yes I was thinking that Nigel. The NURW may not be involved in this issue if the military provide the crew ala Bicester etc.?
Click to expand...
Bicester is a private system. The CM&DPLR trains to the Admiralty Depot at Ditton Priors were worked by BR crews until the line was sold to the RN.
 
yb281 said:
I wasn't really thinking in those terms mate, just an excuse to add the occasional tanker to the pick-up goods and add some more interest to shunting the RAF depot. sidings.
Click to expand...

In that case the wagons would be marshalled in the middle of the train so as to be as far as possible from either the loco or the guard's van (should keep the shunting interesting).
 
oberinntalbahn said:
At the risk of upsetting the executive committee of the NURW (Wetton Gooey branch), it is quite feasible to single man a small oil fired loco. In fact, I think the new(ish) oil fired SLM 2/3 NG Rack tanks run with just a driver.
Click to expand...
True, however it's wise if not mandatory to have either a second man or "dead man's handle" type device.
 
yb281 said:
A Could it be possible that this loco was an oil burner rather than coal?

Would there be any visible equipment that would need adding to the loco?
Click to expand...

Oh yus :thumbup::thumbup:

b398a7cc2ae648168db625e48c17fbdf.jpg
 
yb281 said:
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

Sorry Mel I thought you were in the 1950's, post Edwardian price fixing . :rolf:
Click to expand...
 
I finally got around to doing a job I've been meaning to do for ages today, but I kept bottling it. No.1 was built from a second hand GRS kit. Now anyone who has built one of these older GRS kits will know that the instructions leave an awful lot to be desired - to say the least!! - but, to make things worse, I'm not sure that some of the instructions in this one may have gone missing? So I had to use my previous experience from building the Hunslet (now No.2) and the photo of the finished Kerr Stuart from the GRS catalogue - and there lay the problem. Either the photo was reproduced back to front, or the person who built the kit stuck the smokebox door on the wrong way round. It wasn't until everything was finished that I noticed this mistake.

So the job I needed to do was to saw the Araldited door off my finished model so that I could swap it around. I did this with a razor saw, being VERY careful with the first few cuts to make sure I only took the door off and limited damage to the plasticard front of the smokebox. This went pretty well, the front damage being limited to the paintwork which could be rubbed down and smoothed with a bit of wet and dry. Swapping the door round meant that the dart would be upside down, so this had to be carefully drilled out from the back of the door. It was then super glued back in place, as was the whole door assembly.

9d992e53170f46fbacce2e78297c5557.jpg


The whole front was painted with Tamiya NATO black to cover the sanded down saw marks. The match isn't exactly spot-on due to the loco having been weathered, but the next time I've got the airbrush out I'll give it a quick waft to match everything up.

It's funny isn't it? Sometimes you start what you think will be an easy job and turns into a nightmare. Other times you approach a job with a lot of trepidation and it turns out to be a breeze. Luckily this was one of the latter. :thumbup:
 
Great picture, nicely posed on your diorama which we've not seen for some time now....
 
yb281 said:
Seen running through The Narrows today, No.4 on a passenger service ...........

........... and No.5 with imported Ruritanian ballast.
Click to expand...

Outstanding. Never seen such good looking ballast. :bigsmile:
Trains & scenery aren't half bad either. :thumbup:
 
Lovely shots Mel :bigsmile:
 
enjoyed the article in GR Mel
you've been busy by the look of all this
 
yb281 said:
owlpool said:
enjoyed the article in GR Mel
you've been busy by the look of all this
Click to expand...
Thanks Paul. It's all go here mate. :bigsmile:
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm .........maybe due to the sennapods................:bleh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom