Atomic Systems

In reply to an earlier query, here's the first pic of the Q7. Still quite early in the design cycle, textures are partially recycled for P3 ATM.


Click the image to zoom in


Currently working from an original layout diagram found in O. S. Nock's British Locomotives of the 20th Century (vol.1). Will keep you posted (as usual) as and when.

Already looking good

no default sounds please

and include the good old NER shreik of the whistle


i don't ask for much do I HAHAHAHA

but will it have the the 2 cylinder sound set to go with it though?

Looking good so far

Seeing the front set of wheels set further apart from the rest, I wonder if the NER changed the spec whilst the frames were being built from a 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 to an 0-8-0? Or maybe it's just because they couldn't fit the intended link motion if the wheels were spaced closer together (which is more likely I suppose).

John

Looking good, just leave me the nicer or the NER 0-8-0's (The T2/Q6) and I'll be happy

Thanks for the feedback, work is proceeding apace.

davvydo wrote:no default sounds please

and include the good old NER shreik of the whistle


i don't ask for much do I HAHAHAHA

but will it have the the 2 cylinder sound set to go with it though?

can you recommend any nice freeware packs that I can include? BTW, the T3 is a 3 cylinder engine.

johncard wrote:Seeing the front set of wheels set further apart from the rest, I wonder if the NER changed the spec whilst the frames were being built from a 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 to an 0-8-0? Or maybe it's just because they couldn't fit the intended link motion if the wheels were spaced closer together (which is more likely I suppose).

Not sure on that one; I'll have to re-read Nock to find out.

Hey Ho, back to pushing polygons...

Glad to see your back at the grind stone Chris! You might have had problems in the past, but I've allways liked your locos!

johncard wrote: .. Seeing the front set of wheels set further apart from the rest, I wonder if the NER changed the spec whilst the frames were being built from a 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 to an 0-8-0? Or maybe it's just because they couldn't fit the intended link motion if the wheels were spaced closer together (which is more likely I suppose).

John

I've not heard of a proposal for a 2-6-0, but the T3 was introduced by Vincent Raven in 1919 at the same time as his S3 3 cylinder 4-6-0, to which it has obvious similarities and no doubt shared components, including the 3 cylinder drive.

The T3 was a development of the previous 2 cylinder 0-8-0 classes: Worsdell's T, T1 and Raven's T2. These were also heavy freight cousins of contemporary 4-6-0s (S, S1 & S2), sharing boiler components and cylinders. Although the boilers may differ in heating areas, the major part of the cost and work involved is the making of the correct flanging blocks for tube plates and firebox components; it is a relatively easy job to vary the number and size of tubes and even more so the length of the barrel. Hawksworth was criticised for introducing a 'non-standard' boiler for the GWR Counties (10xx class), but it used flanging blocks already in existence for the building of the Stanier 8Fs during the war so the capital investment was kept to a minimum.

I think it unlikely that Raven would have first contemplated a Mogul as the S3 4-6-0 with 5'6" drivers answered the mixed traffic requirement. A heavy freight needs as much adhesion as possible and a small wheel was not a problem with the slow speeds of unfitted goods. Apparently the T3 was more powerful than was practically useful and they were not multiplied beyond the initial 5 and a later 10 built in 1924.

Anyway, a lovely meaty loco and the model is looking good! Will you be producing an air-fitted version for the Tyne Dock - Consett ore trains?

Patrick

johncard wrote:Seeing the front set of wheels set further apart from the rest, I wonder if the NER changed the spec whilst the frames were being built from a 2-6-0 or 4-6-0 to an 0-8-0? Or maybe it's just because they couldn't fit the intended link motion if the wheels were spaced closer together (which is more likely I suppose).

Having just re-read the chapter in the book, it would seem that the spacing between the leading and secon wheelsets would be to accomodate the space taken up by the three sets of Stephenson curved-link valve gear!

I had the oppertunity to ride behaind 901 a few years ago before it was withdrawn from traffic, and was impressed by the ride quality and performance of what was supposedly a freight locomotive. I seem to recall that the driver said that their power-to-weight ratio was higher that a "9F"!

If anyone is really into modelling, or just railway engines in general, I can't reccomend these books more highly. O. S. nock's knowledge and experiences, along with beautifully reproduced diagrams and photographs make this a must have collection!

morpethcurve wrote: Having just re-read the chapter in the book, it would seem that the spacing between the leading and secon wheelsets would be to accomodate the space taken up by the three sets of Stephenson curved-link valve gear!

Three sets of gear take up as much length as two. It's the width between the frames that becomes a problem. Imagine what it must have looked like: six eccentrics and eccentric rods, one crank and con rod and the driving axlebox bearings. Having worked on locos with two inside cylinders, I can tell you that all the above would be quite difficult and tedious for the fitters and drivers. Not only would maintenance be a chore, but daily oiling would be a right pain, particularly if teh shed didn't have a pit. Another problem would be the restricted size of the axleboxes, leading to overheating and loss of availability. All so that the outside of the loco looked 'clean' and British .. CMEs were often guided as much by aesthetic appearance as practical - and economic - usage.

Patrick

It was probably a matter of economics as well. I may be wrong (I usually am) but I beleive that the NER owned the patent on the Stephenson gear, whereas they would have to pay for the privillage of using Walschaerts or Caprotti.

morpethcurve wrote:It was probably a matter of economics as well. I may be wrong (I usually am) but I beleive that the NER owned the patent on the Stephenson gear, whereas they would have to pay for the privillage of using Walschaerts or Caprotti.

Now that's an interesting question: I have heard of how the royalties/licences charged for the Schmidt superheater encouraged other designs (Robinson, Swindon etc), but never for Stephenson's or Wobbly-shaerts. Caprotti and Lentz, yes, but I wonder if S's and W's gear was long out of patent by then? There had been a number of similar expansion gears (Gooch's and Allan's); these had slightly different valve characteristics and were also suited to different layouts, but may also have been attempts at circumventing other patents. Unfortunately the books I have focus on the mechanical and not the business aspects of these matters! Another job for those more expert than me ..

Patrick

Chris, Are you releasing this loco on it's own or working on stock to release as a pack like you did with the J27/J72 ?

Depends. After the kerfuffle of the last couple of packs, I might just publish as a stand alone (With cab and sounds if I can find them, of course).

Ok, shot number 2. Work has been kinda slow for a couple of reasons (Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 ), but here it is so far. Rods cosmetically posed, no animation as yet.

Click the image to zoom in