Recognising an engine in reverse

[AndiS]

I guess that declaring single-cab engines as dual-cab and switching "between the cabs" to tell the game about the change in orientation will stay the best solution for a long time.

[pjt1974]

I suppose until RS.com release a route set in the steam era without turntable facilities, there is no reason for them to look for a solution. It's route builders such as myself that's caused the problem building routes that never had turntables so it's us who has to find the solution.
It's just like buying a Saxo from a Citroen dealers, installing a multi Killowat stereo and woofer system and then complaining to Citroen because the battery keeps going flat.

[alexedwin]

I have sent an email to RS support and got this positive reply back.

Hi Alex,

thanks for your mail. As noted in the Auto Response mail.

Feedback & Suggestions
All Feedback and suggestions regarding the RailWorks experience and
its content are kindly welcomed and are included in discussions with
the team at regular intervals.

yours indeed will be included too

kind regards
RailWorks Support Mat

In my experience, they do listen.

[pjt1974]

Well I've done what I can do.
If any of the RS crew stumble by this way and see that an effort is being made to find a solution then maybe they might work with us but with all the other backed up issues I've read about on this forum to deal with, I don't think it'd be top on thier list of priorities.

[Neptune50006]

It's a problem that certainly needs addressing, especially for routes such as the Lynton & Barnstaple, where the engines were never turned.

Just an aside regarding this, at one time there would have been a large number of routes in the British Isles that didn't have turntable facilities to hand; would locos arriving at the route all be facing the same way or would there have been some with the boiler facing "up" and some "down"?

I remember reading about the Corris Railway getting one of its engines back from overhaul the wrong way round once. Apparently it didn't perform as well as before. Probably something to do with the boiler not pointing uphill any more.

I'm sure that it could have been something that was important on some standard gauge branches as well.

[Kromaatikse]

Many steam locomotives were designed to run better in one direction than the other, and that was almost always boiler-first. There were notable exceptions, ie. most tank locos and a few of the smaller tender ones (eg. BR 2MT).

The Corris engine may have had trouble for two distinct reasons: the boiler pointing downhill would have left less margin of water over the firebox and thus a smaller steam space with the same prudent fireman, and the valve events may have been optimised for forward power and efficiency due to the local terrain, despite being a tank loco. If it happened to be a 2-4-0T, then an additional problem would have been weight transfer to the carrying axle rather than to a driving axle.

Nevertheless, there were many locos which were explicitly designed to operate in both directions. The 2-6-4T tank engines used for London commuter traffic were expected to be able to minimise stop-to-stop times with reasonable-length trains, and then to turn themselves around at the terminus rapidly (and without tying up the turntable a couple of miles up the track), and do it again in the other direction. No wonder the Southern invested so much in electrification.

[pjt1974]

I've got to admit the Isle of Man did have a turntable in St.Johns but it was only for turning the Manx Northern's coaches to weather each side evenly due to the proximity of the line to the coast and the spray of the Irish Sea.
The engine themselves simply drove out of Douglas(home depot) and reversed back in from wherever they had been. They always have and still do on the South line.

[Neptune50006]

The Corris engine may have had trouble for two distinct reasons: the boiler pointing downhill would have left less margin of water over the firebox and thus a smaller steam space with the same prudent fireman, and the valve events may have been optimised for forward power and efficiency due to the local terrain, despite being a tank loco. If it happened to be a 2-4-0T, then an additional problem would have been weight transfer to the carrying axle rather than to a driving axle.

Just what I was about to say