You know Johnny, we have a photo in the house here somewhere showing the moment of my “awakening,” if you want to call it that.
Lady F took it while I was looking at “Big B’s” N-gauge layout. I’m standing there with my eyes like saucers and a big goofy smile on my face.
“Creating a monster,” “Awakening a sleeping giant,” whatever you call it I was hooked all right! Oh, brother…
Wayne
You are welcome, Vince. I thought you were kidding. I think you better go to the clinic for a checking asap if you are not sure the old lens is still inside your eyes or not; even though you can’t feel it.
I found the story of the “Chain drive” Bulleid Leader Class very interesting, here is a video showing its gear mechanism:
Re. The Leader film clip-- those 3 eccentric mannequins going through their motions is rather hilarious. Good grief those Brits come up with some real doozies.
As to the eye I’ve heard horror stories about incidents like that at clinics. I will hold fast and see what happens.
That “Leader” film was interesting, to say the least. I’m not sure what to think. Was that an example of true “outside-the-box” thinking or a grandiose exercise in over-engineering?
Oh well, as the old saying goes “There’s nothing wrong with thinking ‘outside-the-box’ as long as you remember sometimes ‘the box’ is there for a reason.”
Well, much of the problem was due to putting the works in a box (/rimshot) and much of the rest to various difficulties with available materials and dollar vs. pound material availability.
Leader was originally designed (as so many contemporary approaches, including Steins’ designs of the Thirties, were) for oil firing. That would have obviated most of the issues, including the offset weight issues, all the fireman-comfort and crew-integrity issues, and much of the tunnel-blowback (through all the little secondary-air hollow welded staybolts as well as the excuse for a firehole!)
Had coupling chains been used on both sides of each bogie, as Bulleid originally intended, most of the wear and binding issues with the drive would not have occurred. Likewise, had one of the bogies not been ‘crash-tested’ on compressed air, and had assembly of the crank axle and wheelset not involved pressing with inadequate blocking of the crank webs, there would have been fewer “problems” with that end.
The real problem was that this thing was not a replacement for an M7 tank, which was the supposed raison d’etre of the design in the first place. It was far too long, heavy, and complicated to do the necessary jobs – let alone more economical by any sane analysis.
The sleeve valves were intended to have the absolute minimum of dead space for very large, but very quick port opening and closing, with high precision over steam-edge alignment and relatively low drive power requirement. There was no particular reason why even 19th-century valve travel wouldn’t produce the clean and quick valve events made possible on piston valves only with long-lap long-travel design.
Unfortunately
The real problem was that this thing was not a replacement for an M7 tank, which was the supposed raison d’etre of the design in the first place. It was far too long, heavy, and complicated to do the necessary jobs – let alone more economical by any sane analysis.
However, life went on:
The year after work on the five “Leaders” was abandoned at Brighton, work started on 41 LMS-design Fairburn 2-6-4Ts for use on the Southern Region. These were the final refinement of one of the most successful designs of the Grouping period and did the exact job the Leader had strayed from performing by requirements creep.
The “Leader” name was intended to be a class title with locomotive names to suit.
As construction dragged on towards eventual cancellation, the names planned fot the “Leaders” found their way to the “Battle of Britain” class Pacifics, starting with “Winston Churchill”, through senior RAF officers and others associated with aircraft production to “Sir Eustace Missenden, Southern Railway”.
So it was all right in the end…
Peter
The photo of the Leader in the first post here perfectly illustrates why the Union was so opposed to it: There is no centre door on the near side of the locomotive.
If it were to overturn and come to rest with this side up the Fireman would be trapped inside.
Oil firing might have resolved this problem, as the Fireman could then potentially have been located in one of the cabs at the ends of the locomotive.
The first time I read about the Leader Class was probably when I was around 10 years old in the library of my primary school; before I read the description I thought it was some sort of construction equipment for the London Underground, because of the design of the cap. Back in those days, there are limited ways to dig deeper on such rare topic: keep searching other railroading books in the library, ask the teacher who knows nothing about train or goes to the reference book section of the Central Library of the city hall for thorough searching. But I was distracted by other steam engine and train, as well as other topics and forgot about the “Leader” Class until I saw it again on the internet.
“Sometimes, things just don’t work out as planned”
French “The Thuile” Cab Forward - a classy odd-duck
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/thuile/thuile.htm#boil
L’Aérotrain Expérimental 02
L’Aérotrain
Aérotrain I80
[D]
[W][:O]
ok … I’ll race ya in my hot rod steam speeder!
Ok now … what do we have here? Hot Rod steam speeder?
I could go for one of these.
About that front seat!