On 01/08/2023 16:36, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:26:34 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Wikipedia has a page about minimum curve radii which isn't particularly
>>> useful other than telling us that the Bernina line has 45m radius, Cromford
>>> and High Peak (and Welsh Highland) 50m, Central Line 61m
>>
>> So the Central Line has the tightest bend(s) on a UK standard gauge
>> railway? Presumably it's on the westbound track just to the west of
>> Shepherd's Bush.
>
> If you discount street tram systems then I would imagine the DLR would win
> any minimum curve radius competition in the UK.
>

What about the Tyne and Wear Metro? I seem to remember there are some
quite sharp curves on that in the central area.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/08/2023 16:36, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:26:34 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Wikipedia has a page about minimum curve radii which isn't particularly
>>>> useful other than telling us that the Bernina line has 45m radius, Cromford
>>>> and High Peak (and Welsh Highland) 50m, Central Line 61m
>>>
>>> So the Central Line has the tightest bend(s) on a UK standard gauge
>>> railway? Presumably it's on the westbound track just to the west of
>>> Shepherd's Bush.
>>
>> If you discount street tram systems then I would imagine the DLR would win
>> any minimum curve radius competition in the UK.
>>
>
> What about the Tyne and Wear Metro? I seem to remember there are some
> quite sharp curves on that in the central area.

No, it only has gentle curves, 120m minimum. LU has much tighter curves,
and the DLR even more so.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>> The class 33’s distance of 10ft between the bogie axles is actually fairly
>> long compared to other UK Bo-Bo locos with 8ft 6” being the most common
>> distance.
>> The measurement between the bogie pivots must also be considered ,the 33 at
>> 29ft isn’t alone at that but some were considerably shorter such as the
>> class 22’s with 8ft 6” bogies 23ft apart which made them useful on the
>> clay lines in Cornwall and Devon which had some sharp curves .
>
> Does the bogie spacing distance actually matter, as long ad the bogies are
> able to pivot enough?
>
>> Yes the 33’s were frequent visitors to the docks but generally on the main
>> lines to the passenger terminals a path already trod by Southern main line
>> steam Locos .
>
> That's the key point: any Bo-Bo loco can cope with tight curves better than
> almost any steam loco, apart from tiny tanks.
>
>> They didn’t venture on the tight parts once the preserve of short wheelbase
>> steamers like the USA
>> tanks which were replaced by 07 Diesel shunters for the decade such lines
>> were still used.
>> This table sums most of our classes wheelbase dimensions.
>>
>> <http://www.clag.org.uk/wheelbase.html>
>>
>> The GP40 has 10ft wheelbase bogies at 34ft centre so unless there are other
>> factors that limit the bogie rotation quite a few UK classes should be able
>> to follow one around a curve.
>
> Historically, yes, but most operational UK freight locos are Co-Co, with
> much longer bogies. For example, the ubiquitous class 66s have 13'7"
> wheelbase bogies. From the BR era, a class 47 is 14'6".
>
I suppose that is because the type of small industrial connection to
private sidings is now almost
unheard of in the UK though there were still plenty when the first
modernisation diesel classes were ordered hence quite few BO-BO classes now
withdrawn.
The steel industry seems to have been a bastion for more recent BO-BO locos
with the recent Hybrid ones from Clayton joining others about 14 years old
from another supplier joining BO-BO Locos from established names like Brush
and Hunslet and at Port Talbot a handful of typical US switcher BO-BO
locos from Alco survived to the 1980’s.

No idea of the track constraints at the various steel plants.
Most industrial users were happy with much smaller rigid base Locos which
due to declining demand
on BR were available to the industries that still needed them.

GH

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 11:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/07/2023 17:31, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:21:55 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31/07/2023 16:45, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> I find the fact that a full size US loco can make this curve which wouldn't
>>>>>>>> be out of place on a light railway very impressive:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Em_OtLhEQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't imagine a mainline british loco managing this sort of radius. Maybe
>>>>>>>> an 08 would manage it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I seem to remember there were some pretty sharp curves into the old loco
>>>>>>> depot at Kings Cross. The sound of a brand new Class 47 negotiating them
>>>>>>> back in 1962 was fairly deafening. Unfortunately video cameras weren't a
>>>>>>> thing then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A class 47 would obviously have more problems on a tight curve than a GP40.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite I would imagine a Class 33 would cope, they certainly managed the
>>>>> Southampton docks lines.
>>>>>
>>>> The class 33’s distance of 10ft between the bogie axles is actually fairly
>>>> long compared to other UK Bo-Bo locos with 8ft 6” being the most common
>>>> distance.
>>>> The measurement between the bogie pivots must also be considered ,the 33 at
>>>> 29ft isn’t alone at that but some were considerably shorter such as the
>>>> class 22’s with 8ft 6” bogies 23ft apart which made them useful on the
>>>> clay lines in Cornwall and Devon which had some sharp curves .
>>>
>>> Does the bogie spacing distance actually matter, as long ad the bogies are
>>> able to pivot enough?
>>>
>>
>> The curve through the building in the video has a platform on the inner
>> side; longer bogie spacing will increase the in-swing into that area.
>
> Yes, the building appears to have been constructed to exactly suit the
> loco and wagon. But in the open, would bogie
> spacing matter?
>
>>
>>>> Yes the 33’s were frequent visitors to the docks but generally on the main
>>>> lines to the passenger terminals a path already trod by Southern main line
>>>> steam Locos .
>>>
>>> That's the key point: any Bo-Bo loco can cope with tight curves better than
>>> almost any steam loco, apart from tiny tanks.
>>>
>>
>> Plus the various articulated steam locomotives designed for specific tasks.
>
> I wonder if even an articulated steam loco could get round the tight
> bends a Bo-Bo diesel with short bogies can manage?
>

There were designs like the Climax and Shay that could.

Robin

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:20:19 +0100, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 01/08/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:56:43 +0100, Bevan Price
>> <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/07/2023 17:29, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:45:06 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I find the fact that a full size US loco can make this curve which wouldn't
>>>>> be out of place on a light railway very impressive:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Em_OtLhEQ
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't imagine a mainline british loco managing this sort of radius. Maybe
>>>>> an 08 would manage it.
>>>>
>>>> It's a Bo-Bo with short bogies, so no problem. A class 08, with its 3.05m wheelbase, would probably have more problems
>>>> than that loco on a tight bend.
>>>
>>> In UK, that sort of service would have been an early target for
>>> Marples/Beeching closures......
>>>
>> Is it possible it could be owned by the brewery?
>
>It could be - but it would be not much use if the main line connection
>had been closed.

The loco is in the railway company's livery, so is presumably just one of its normal fleet.

>
>Loco + a single wagon was the type of trip working that Beeching wanted
>to get rid of.

Bob <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> I wonder if even an articulated steam loco could get round the tight
>> bends a Bo-Bo diesel with short bogies can manage?
>>
>
> There were designs like the Climax and Shay that could.
>
> Robin
>
>
I wonder what Oliver Bulleids Leader was designed to accommodate?
His original proposals was for it to be a replacement for older mixed
traffic locos like the M7
and have 4 Wheel bogies but this would have exceeded axle load limits so it
ended up with 6 wheel bogies which at a shade under 15’6” wheelbase were on
the long side.
Perhaps another failure of the design which even if it had worked
mechanically would not have been able to be used as intended.

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I wonder if even an articulated steam loco could get round the tight
>>> bends a Bo-Bo diesel with short bogies can manage?
>>>
>>
>> There were designs like the Climax and Shay that could.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
> I wonder what Oliver Bulleids Leader was designed to accommodate?

Since last post have found a reference that minimum curve would have been
5.5 chains or 363 feet.

GH

On 2 Aug 2023 13:37:36 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:

>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Bob <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I wonder if even an articulated steam loco could get round the tight
>>>> bends a Bo-Bo diesel with short bogies can manage?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There were designs like the Climax and Shay that could.
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>> I wonder what Oliver Bulleids Leader was designed to accommodate?
>
>Since last post have found a reference that minimum curve would have been
>5.5 chains or 363 feet.

So about 111m.

According to Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
>> > The street track is the trunk of a network of branches that connect a lot of
>> > industrial sites across Utica, and has been there since 1860s. Some
>> > history:
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI3SlZpVU1E
>>
>> Thanks. Those little trains screech even on straight and level tracks!
>
>I'm surprised the locals put up with the noise (especially all the horn
>blasts), but if it's been there for 160 years...

It's an industrial neighborhood, and I expect there is more noise from HGVs
than from the occasional train.

Their beer is quite good. I drink a lot of it.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I wonder if even an articulated steam loco could get round the tight
>>> bends a Bo-Bo diesel with short bogies can manage?
>>>
>>
>> There were designs like the Climax and Shay that could.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
> I wonder what Oliver Bulleids Leader was designed to accommodate?
> His original proposals was for it to be a replacement for older mixed
> traffic locos like the M7
> and have 4 Wheel bogies but this would have exceeded axle load limits so it
> ended up with 6 wheel bogies which at a shade under 15’6” wheelbase were on
> the long side.
> Perhaps another failure of the design which even if it had worked
> mechanically would not have been able to be used as intended.

Bulleid also built his turf burner 0-6-6-0 for the CIÉ. It had a shorter
wheelbase, 12’7.75”, and smaller wheels, 3’7”, than the Leader’s 15’6” and
5’1” respectively. It seems to have been much more successful than Leader,
but was overtaken by the diesel engine.

See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIÉ_No._CC1>,
<http://www.bulleidlocos.org.uk/_oth/cc1_itb.aspx> and Haresnape’s ‘Bulleid
Locomotives’.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2023 17:31, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:21:55 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31/07/2023 16:45, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> I find the fact that a full size US loco can make this curve which wouldn't
>>>>>>> be out of place on a light railway very impressive:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Em_OtLhEQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't imagine a mainline british loco managing this sort of radius. Maybe
>>>>>>> an 08 would manage it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I seem to remember there were some pretty sharp curves into the old loco
>>>>>> depot at Kings Cross. The sound of a brand new Class 47 negotiating them
>>>>>> back in 1962 was fairly deafening. Unfortunately video cameras weren't a
>>>>>> thing then.
>>>>>
>>>>> A class 47 would obviously have more problems on a tight curve than a GP40.
>>>>
>>>> Quite I would imagine a Class 33 would cope, they certainly managed the
>>>> Southampton docks lines.
>>>>
>>> The class 33’s distance of 10ft between the bogie axles is actually fairly
>>> long compared to other UK Bo-Bo locos with 8ft 6” being the most common
>>> distance.
>>> The measurement between the bogie pivots must also be considered ,the 33 at
>>> 29ft isn’t alone at that but some were considerably shorter such as the
>>> class 22’s with 8ft 6” bogies 23ft apart which made them useful on the
>>> clay lines in Cornwall and Devon which had some sharp curves .
>>> Yes the 33’s were frequent visitors to the docks but generally on the main
>>> lines to the passenger terminals a path already trod by Southern main line
>>> steam Locos .
>>> They didn’t venture on the tight parts once the preserve of short wheelbase
>>> steamers like the USA
>>> tanks which were replaced by 07 Diesel shunters for the decade such lines
>>> were still used.
>>> This table sums most of our classes wheelbase dimensions.
>>>
>>> <http://www.clag.org.uk/wheelbase.html>
>>>
>>> The GP40 has 10ft wheelbase bogies at 34ft centre so unless there are other
>>> factors that limit the bogie rotation quite a few UK classes should be able
>>> to follow one around a curve.
>>>
>>
>> Taking a **very** rough guess from google maps, it looks around a 50m
>> radius curve, or ~2.5 chains. The two tightest equivalents I can think of
>> OTTOMH in the UK, Dinting Station and St Philips Marsh, both look **very**
>> roughly 150m radius.
>
> Might there be industrial or dock lines with tighter curves in the UK (ie,
> the equivalent of the brewery siding in the video)?
>
>>
>> Meanwhile a Google search turned up this, from an old thread on RMWeb
>> forum:
>>
>> "The absolute minimum curve for main line use was approximately four and a
>> half chains, as per Iain Rice's Railway Modeling The Realistic Way.
>> The usual minimum curve for main line locomotives was 6 chains, as per the
>> same source.
>> Small pannier tanks like the 136X class and the Class 08/09s had a minimum
>> radius of 3 and a half chains.
>> The Class 03/04s had a minimum radius of 2 chains and the Class 02 a
>> minimum of only one! Suffice it to say these were extremes."
>
> So a class 08 probably wouldn't have been able to get into that brewery?
>
>>
>> Wikipedia has a page about minimum curve radii which isn't particularly
>> useful other than telling us that the Bernina line has 45m radius, Cromford
>> and High Peak (and Welsh Highland) 50m, Central Line 61m
>
> So the Central Line has the tightest bend(s) on a UK standard gauge
> railway? Presumably it's on the westbound track just to the west of
> Shepherd's Bush.
>
>> and "North American Rail Network, Absolute minimum radius; not on lines for general
>> service" is 87m radius.
>>
>> Most freight wagons have (or had) minimum curve radius marked on them,
>> IIRC; next time I happen to see a rake of wagons in a convenient place,
>> I'll try to remember to check what they say.
>
> I've never noticed that!
>

I've seen two types of bogie freight wagons (HHA and JNA) today, both
labelled "min curve 70m".

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 09:53:13 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> and "North American Rail Network, Absolute minimum radius; not on lines for
>general
>>> service" is 87m radius.
>>>
>>> Most freight wagons have (or had) minimum curve radius marked on them,
>>> IIRC; next time I happen to see a rake of wagons in a convenient place,
>>> I'll try to remember to check what they say.
>>
>> I've never noticed that!
>>
>
>I've seen two types of bogie freight wagons (HHA and JNA) today, both
>labelled "min curve 70m".

I wonder if thats less to do with what they could physically negotiate and
more to do with the couplers and/or the risk of being pulled over or pushed
out if in a train?

This is what I mean by the latter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFLJvpwm52Q

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/07/2023 17:31, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:21:55 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31/07/2023 16:45, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> I find the fact that a full size US loco can make this curve which wouldn't
>>>>>>>> be out of place on a light railway very impressive:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Em_OtLhEQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't imagine a mainline british loco managing this sort of radius. Maybe
>>>>>>>> an 08 would manage it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I seem to remember there were some pretty sharp curves into the old loco
>>>>>>> depot at Kings Cross. The sound of a brand new Class 47 negotiating them
>>>>>>> back in 1962 was fairly deafening. Unfortunately video cameras weren't a
>>>>>>> thing then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A class 47 would obviously have more problems on a tight curve than a GP40.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite I would imagine a Class 33 would cope, they certainly managed the
>>>>> Southampton docks lines.
>>>>>
>>>> The class 33’s distance of 10ft between the bogie axles is actually fairly
>>>> long compared to other UK Bo-Bo locos with 8ft 6” being the most common
>>>> distance.
>>>> The measurement between the bogie pivots must also be considered ,the 33 at
>>>> 29ft isn’t alone at that but some were considerably shorter such as the
>>>> class 22’s with 8ft 6” bogies 23ft apart which made them useful on the
>>>> clay lines in Cornwall and Devon which had some sharp curves .
>>>> Yes the 33’s were frequent visitors to the docks but generally on the main
>>>> lines to the passenger terminals a path already trod by Southern main line
>>>> steam Locos .
>>>> They didn’t venture on the tight parts once the preserve of short wheelbase
>>>> steamers like the USA
>>>> tanks which were replaced by 07 Diesel shunters for the decade such lines
>>>> were still used.
>>>> This table sums most of our classes wheelbase dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.clag.org.uk/wheelbase.html>
>>>>
>>>> The GP40 has 10ft wheelbase bogies at 34ft centre so unless there are other
>>>> factors that limit the bogie rotation quite a few UK classes should be able
>>>> to follow one around a curve.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Taking a **very** rough guess from google maps, it looks around a 50m
>>> radius curve, or ~2.5 chains. The two tightest equivalents I can think of
>>> OTTOMH in the UK, Dinting Station and St Philips Marsh, both look **very**
>>> roughly 150m radius.
>>
>> Might there be industrial or dock lines with tighter curves in the UK (ie,
>> the equivalent of the brewery siding in the video)?
>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile a Google search turned up this, from an old thread on RMWeb
>>> forum:
>>>
>>> "The absolute minimum curve for main line use was approximately four and a
>>> half chains, as per Iain Rice's Railway Modeling The Realistic Way.
>>> The usual minimum curve for main line locomotives was 6 chains, as per the
>>> same source.
>>> Small pannier tanks like the 136X class and the Class 08/09s had a minimum
>>> radius of 3 and a half chains.
>>> The Class 03/04s had a minimum radius of 2 chains and the Class 02 a
>>> minimum of only one! Suffice it to say these were extremes."
>>
>> So a class 08 probably wouldn't have been able to get into that brewery?
>>
>>>
>>> Wikipedia has a page about minimum curve radii which isn't particularly
>>> useful other than telling us that the Bernina line has 45m radius, Cromford
>>> and High Peak (and Welsh Highland) 50m, Central Line 61m
>>
>> So the Central Line has the tightest bend(s) on a UK standard gauge
>> railway? Presumably it's on the westbound track just to the west of
>> Shepherd's Bush.
>>
>>> and "North American Rail Network, Absolute minimum radius; not on lines for general
>>> service" is 87m radius.
>>>
>>> Most freight wagons have (or had) minimum curve radius marked on them,
>>> IIRC; next time I happen to see a rake of wagons in a convenient place,
>>> I'll try to remember to check what they say.
>>
>> I've never noticed that!
>>
>
> I've seen two types of bogie freight wagons (HHA and JNA) today, both
> labelled "min curve 70m".
>

…and some 4-wheel PCA wagons, "Minimum curve 50m".

Anna Noyd-Dryver