If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Divided versus unified drive

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by MellishR, Aug 23, 2017.

  1. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,165
    This is one of several themes on the http://www.national-preservation.com/threads/proposed-new-builds.985610 thread, which may deserve a separate discussion.

    The numbers of generally successful designs (and, come to that, less successful ones) with both arrangements indicate that neither has an overwhelming advantage. As usual in engineering, each presumably has some pros and some cons, to which different designers gave different weights in choosing which arrangement to adopt.

    Differences include the patterns of stresses in the frames and the constraints on the inclination of the inside cylinder(s) and on the lengths of the connecting rods.

    What are the pros and cons? Why was Gresley in particular so keen on unified drive?
     
  2. jma1009

    jma1009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ynysddu south wales
    You have to go back to Gresley's first 3 cylindered loco, and subsequently the famous meeting with Harold Holcroft. As well as Holcroft showing Gresley how a much better conjugated gear could be used, he also showed Gresley how the middle cylinder could be inclined to drive the same axle as the 2 outside cylinders.

    Holcroft knew enough about valve gears to deal with the corrections required to deal with conn rods of differing lengths and the angularity that results.

    Cheers,
    Julian
     

Share This Page