WW1 4-6-0 Baldwin

[kevmt]

If you look closely at photos of the Ashover engines you’ll notice they all have large diameter balance pipes running from tank to tank under the smokebox. As none of the other engines that ran in this country have better balance pipe I can only surmise that the PT Way on the Ashover left a lot to be desired???

I've seen pictures of Ashover Baldwins on there side.

Cheers,
Kevin

[jefran]

The most commonly seen picture of ALR Baldwin on its side, is as the result of a collision on a level crossing, which wasn't really the fault of the permanent way! The track was certainly in poor condition towards the end, and derailments not uncommon, but nobody drives a steam engine at a speed which might have it toppling over in the event of a derailment and risk being scalded or burned - potentially fatally.

The Baldwins certainly rode roughly going forwards, and very badly going backwards, though this was more the fault of those who specified the 4-6-0 wheel arrangement. The 2-6-2s which followed (like Mountaineer) were rather better on that score, though they still suffered from the tendency to topple when left on uneven track - there is a well known picture of a British officer tut tutting at an Alco on its side. The problem was not confined to tank engines, though the high pannier tanks on these WDLR locos made it worse, there was a case of 2' gauge Sandy River tender engine overbalancing on superelevated track, as the water made its way past any baffles and collected at the downhill side.

I had not realised that the ALR Baldwins were unique in their front balance pipes, but now I check, they certainly seem to be, and they were not added when the vacuum brakes were fitted, as pictures of Peggy and Joan in 1925 don't show them, though Joan had them by October 1926.

[CaptainBazza]

It's been a while since I read up on these engines. Were they all supplied by Baldwin, or were other manufacturers involved? That fact might account for variations in the lamps - different suppliers.

Cheers Bazza

[MuzTrem]

There were other manufacturers who supplied engines to the western front (e.g. ALCO and Hunslet), but they had their own designs.

[sp762]

All of the 4-6-0T locomotives were supplied by Baldwin. The Davenport and ALCO locos ordered by USATC were to a 2-6-2T design which benefited from the lessons learned by the WDLR. The Baldwin locos were designed to the same contract specification as the Hunslet locos - even though the Baldwin company sugested a 2-6-2 design the WD insisted on the original spec.

[Rfairlie]

The ALCO locos had the benefit of outside frames which improves the ride somewhat. Has anyone ever seen how the front bogie is attached on the Baldwins, basically its a bolt with a big spring on top. Pretty much the same as model railway engine.

Mountaineer doesn't ride too badly but then again thats on good track and its been a few years since i went on it. You can tell they weren't built to last though, Mountaineer has bent frames and very worn out cylinders partly because it's 1 piece and its been moving backwards and forwards very slightly for years.
Tim

[andrewgadd]

and its been moving backwards and forwards very slightly for years.

I'd hardly call a 14 mile backwards and forwards motion very slight...........
But, seriously,
American locos are not built the same as over here, the frames (for want of a better word) are normally cast in one or more pieces (referred to as bar frames), Mountaineer is no different, although there has been some serious modification carried out to the back end when the loco was rebuilt to carry the SB3 boiler.
Bar frames were always heralded by railway engineers as the only way forward and British loco engineers were always considered a little bit anarchistic for sticking with the "Plate Frame" design. Interestingly though, as railway preservation continues it is the plate frame design that is proving the easer to maintain (cut out rotten bits, weld/rivet in new bits or even replace bits) but, as Mountaineer is proving, thats not so simple on a bar frame.....
Riveted up plate frames also flex and stress when in use, bar frames just crack.
Another point of interest about bar frames is the fully compensated axle loading, I'm looking for a good photo of this, but Mountaineer demonstrates this very well. If you're close to her next time take a look. Every spring from the front to the back is connected to the next and so on.

[andrewgadd]

Heres an drawing of a Vulcan Iron Works WW1 2-6-2, not unlike Mountaineer.
Note the compensating beams connecting all the springs together (not sure about the space between the 1-2 driving axles), If you ever watched Mountaineer pulling away with a heavy train at Porthmadog, she would hunker right down at the back as the loco compensated for the load. If she slipped when doing this, she would immediately level off as the load was lost. Great fun to watch.

[Rfairlie]

I meant the cylinder block has been moving in relation to the frames not a good thing really as you end up putting loads on things in funny places. Another issue with the frames is that there not very substantial at the back where there happens to be a heavy tank of fuel now instead of some nice light coal. If it wasn't for the cab then the back of the engine would have fallen off years ago. It's a shame it's got into this state it was a great engine deceptively powerful and made a fantastic noise plus its one of only a few engines you can kick the regulator open on Needs a rather large amount of money spending on it now though luckily the FR aren't allowed to sell it otherwise knowing them they would have done by now.

Tim

[andrewgadd]

I have to say, she was always my engine of choice when riding on the FR, but if I just wanted to to look at an FR engine then it was Linda....

[jefran]

That's a most interesting drawing - one I certainly haven't seen before. Straining the vari-focals the dimensions seem to tally with those on a drawing of the US Army Baldwin 2-6-2T (some of which were built by Davenport) which appear in the current Fort Benning thread. Did Vulcan build these to Baldwin's design?. Incidentally, one of the Penrhyn engines (Felin Hen) which went to Australia during the Second World War, is now living in France.

These engines were certainly not intended to last, and the amazing thing is that any of them have.

[MuzTrem]

You can tell they weren't built to last though, Mountaineer has bent frames and very worn out cylinders partly because it's 1 piece and its been moving backwards and forwards very slightly for years.

I think that's at least partly because Boston Lodge have tinkered about with her so much over the years to make her more powerful...indeed, I quote from an old copy of the Ffestiniog Railway Magazine:

A great deal of effot was expended on revolutionising the performance of Mountaineer but the engine was strictly too small in build to sustain the very high power outputs that became possible without structural failure, and neccessarily had to be downgraded for reliability.

But no, I wouldn't have expected the engines to have been intended for very long lives - after all, they were being sent to a war zone! But then again, some lasted in Indian sugar mills until the early '90s...