This thread has caused me to look up a number of things that were just names. Reidinger valve gear was a prime example, paticularly since there was no visible evidence on the locomotive to differentiate between rotary cam Lentz gear (which all Reidinger locomotives had when built).
It is clear that as late as 1954, enough senior engineers in British Railways were concerned about the long term reliability of varible cutoff British Caprotti gear to be testing a fairly complex alternative on locomotives in regular service.
Baker valve gear was little used in Australia, maybe eleven locomotives. The New South Wales Railways had 120 locomotives fitted with Southern valve gear, which in theory required even less attention than Baker gear, and notably eliminated the combination lever. It was said that the Southern gear worked so well and required so little attention that the first indication of something being wrong was a major component falling off the locomotive. There were 470 similar locomotives with inside Allan straight link motion, a simplified version of Stephenson gear with, as the name suggests a straight rather than curved reversing link, which presumably absorbed much more time in inspection and repair. Queensland Railways had one locomotive with Southern valve gear and there were tales of the gear swinging from side to side to the extent that the valve events were affected. Perhaps Southern gear ended up being too complicated for the theoretical benefits.
Peter
daveklepperIf one were to build as modern and up-to-date rod steam locomotive, twocylinders, probably a 4-8-4 or 2-8-4, dual-service, what valve-gear would you choose?
I am partial to David Wardale's idea of separating admission from exhaust timing and duration by using two parallel piston valves (of his general construction, articulated in three pieces with suitable rings and defined steam edge, steam or overcritical-water cooling of the admission-valve liner, etc) and this would require some modification to the Baker gear somewhat along the lines of 'sociable' bicycle construction; you could also probably drive the exhaust valve via derived drive but packaging it becomes a bit of an issue.
Long-lap though perhaps not the long-travel of the late French (de Caso) practice; jacket the hell out of the cylinders as well as insulating them; capable 'enough' reversible compression control (which may prove to involve multiple reversible relief valves with insulated reservoirs) -- this also helping to avoid the 'unwinding' of Baker gear sometimes notable on accounts of N&W testing... if it can happen there it can happen anywhere, and needs to be guarded against...
If one were to build as modern and up-to-date rod steam locomotive, twocylinders, probably a 4-8-4 or 2-8-4, dual-service, what valve-gear would you choose?
M636CThat is because the photo has been retouched to remove the background... we can't say whether there is a casing there or not.
In the longitudinal section the gearbox is illustrated with the driven-gear casing directly above the axle centerline, much as it would be in a typical automobile speedometer drive. In the picture, there is nothing in that location;
That is because the photo has been retouched to remove the background... we can't say whether there is a casing there or not. On the other hand, the casing around the axle does not look deep enough to cover a bevel gear....
In the longitudinal section the gearbox is illustrated with the driven-gear casing directly above the axle centerline, much as it would be in a typical automobile speedometer drive. In the picture, there is nothing in that location; the casing over the axle and the domed forward face of the 'nose' are both visibly forward of the center line, which is what led me to think there is hypoid or spiral-bevel gearing in there. But I don't think there is much doubt that this is what the Jones patent would call for. in being an enclosed drive in a maintenance-difficult environment going to a single complex fluidic distributor that does all the functions for the four 'ends' through the range of forward to reverse.
There is vanishingly little issue with backdriving in the design as the shaft is only driving a fluid distributor, and that fluid is not 'steam' but pressure oil at that point.
The thing that bothers me now is what that disc at the end of the driven shaft does. It does not look like part of any torque coupling, which it almost has to be.
I confess the more I look at the principle of the Jones gear, the more I appreciate what Tom Daniels tried to do with British Caprotti, using the steam only in lieu of a debounced counterspring that causes so many issues in Franklin-system Lentz. If you want fluidic amplification of valve events, do it in the follower system on top of what the mechanical modified-trap cam does.
The question with the British Caprotti valve arrangement then becomes how do you regulate the throttle to be sure the valves get enough pressure to seat -- as otherwise you get the same sort of BLOW as with 2926 before the Wagner drifting valve seats...
In the longitudinal section the gearbox is illustrated with the driven-gear casing directly above the axle centerline, much as it would be in a typical automobile speedometer drive. In the picture, there is nothing in that location; the casing over the axle and the domed forward face of the 'nose' are both visibly forward of the center line, which is what led me to think there is hypoid or spiral-bevel gearing in there. There is vanishingly little issue with backdriving in the design as the shaft is only driving a fluid distributor, and that fluid is not 'steam' but pressure oil at that point.
Certainly the right size and configuration, but the drive in the patent is presumably a multiple-thread worm on a sleeve over the axle driving the timing shaft, while the arrangement pictured would not work that way, perhaps involving spiral bevel gears.
Having enlarged the drawing it does indeed look like a large diameter worm gear driving the shaft, but the size and shape of the casing is a very close match to that in the photograph. Certainly some of my HO models have a large diameter worm that also served as a flywheel. There is no indication of an offset that would be expected with bevel gears. The casing over the axle would allow a helical gear as expected by a worm drive but not a bevel gear...
Basically, the patent drawing and the photo match pretty well in my opinion....
Certainly the right size and configuration, but the drive in the patent is presumably a multiple-thread worm on a sleeve over the axle driving the timing shaft, while the arrangement pictured would not work that way, perhaps involving spiral bevel gears. Note that this is the opposite of an automotive rear end where the action optimized here would be 'backdriving'; in the Jones gear the shaft only rotates the 'distributor' either way (presumably with angular precision) the cutoff being determined from 'full gear' through a neutral to full reverse by sliding part of the driven distributor mechanism axially. I think the presumption was that shaft torquing or cumulative play wouldn't be a problem because it's only turning a fluidic distributing valve, all the sealing being in shear...
I did think it was too stout for a lube pump, but I thought the same thing of reverse gearing and planetaries for transverse direct-drive steam turbines...
Some valve gears -- the one on Bulleid's Leader, for example -- used one method to drive the gear and a separate one to time it. That allows the valve motion to be quick and positive, but its timing and duration at high speed precise.
In Bulleid's case, he had 'a plethora of rings' in a Meehanite sleeve that had to be kept consistently lubricated well enough not to break. To facilitate this he had a drive arrangement that gently rolled the sleeve to and fro while the main gear urged it 'to and fro' past the port openings (which were all the way around the cylinder at each end, the effective dead space limited to the aggregate volume of the ports through the sleeve). A chain drive from a sprocket on the leading bogie axle -- correctly deployed running in one direction instead of periodically reversing -- ran the stiction-precluding, oil-spreading twist. The combined motion was said to be fascinating to watch...
Something to remember in Jones gear is that it is mandatory full servo: there is no physical connection to the valves at all so that if any part of their construction should stick or bind there is nothing but fluidics (or assisting return springs) to 'urge' them. I have always thought of this principle as a grave mistake on an operating high-speed reciprocating locomotive.
Part of the issue is to be read 'behind the scenes'. A popular pastime of poppet people was to make the use of higher superheat look more practical by eliminating lubrication (see Wardale's discussion of this in the 5AT correspondence over adopting Brutish Caprotti) both in the valve motion and by reducing coking by providing steam displacement of air, or steam-displaced bypass as in Nicolas or Trofimov valves. A problem is that there is already the possibility of ridiculously high superheat in locomotives eith front-end throttles operated at high speed (I think it was Ross Rowland who used the expression 'crazy high') and those of us who remember Stumpf and his barrel-shaped valves look very carefully at the tribology of the guides and pistons in the driving end of even a 'multiplicity' of small valves running in such steam for an extended period (that could he considered a 'soak' period). To me this implies a need both for Wardale-style cooling of the 'back ends' of the valves eith exhaust steam and for some combination of high-volume circulation (independent of fluidic use) of the oil in the valve actuation circuits combined with oil-temperature tempering (again perhaps with an exhaust-steam or 'boiler water' intercooler but the risks of 'water in the oil' are disturbingly high (for anyone who has owned a Ford 6.0L diesel!!)
Did we not decide that Spicer drive was an oil pump for the valve gear in 5399?
I certainly suggested it but that was before I saw this drawing of 5436...
M636CReidinger was not really "infinitely" variable unless I misunderstand the purpose of the "dog clutches" shown in the patent
Incidentally, the Jones patent, 2,260,458A, can be viewed (and downloaded as PDF) here. Who can be first to spot some of the issues this gear might have in practice?
Reidinger was not really "infinitely" variable unless I misunderstand the purpose of the "dog clutches" shown in the patent. It did work well enought to keep it in service. The LNER rebuilt the six D49s fitted with Oscillating cam Lentz gear with piston valves (although it ahould be remembered that the centre valve was driven by Gresley Conjugating gear anyway....)
The timing of the Reidinger gear, with the patent application in 1938 in the UK, suggests that it was intended to address the problems of the P2 2-8-2 "Cock of the North" which was built with continuously variable cams but was rapidly converted to stepped cams due to the well described problems. Perhaps the LNER had already converted 2001 to piston valves by the time Reidinger was ready, but were happy to try it on a 4-4-0. The conversion of the five class 5 2-6-0s in 1954 suggests that BR were still willing to try an option for rotary cam drive.
Of course, as Vernon Smith points out, the gear on 5399 was built using Lentz patents. Smith was dismissive of the L.B. Jones poppet valves on PRR 5436, indicating that it had an irregular exhaust beat and unexpected loud noises were heard from the valves, suggesting that valves were sticking and releasing out of cycle. He says it was only ever used as second engine on double headed trains. I have seen a photo showing the cylinders and front end of 5436 and there is no indication of the drive.
Could this be the poppet gear drive of 5436?
It was supposed to address some of the problems with 'steps' in RC poppet-valve gear, even present in the British Caprotti system on Duke of Gloucester, that do not allow the seamless continuous control of cutoff that good long-lap long-travel radial or link gears do. (We would see this bug billed as a 'feature' in Franklin type D, but that's a different story with very different purpose in mind!)
The Franklin solution was of course the original "type C" with the continuous-contour shifting camshaft and the spherical roller followers, which was nifty as long as the gear wasn't operated in the 'best' notches for general running too long. The approximation to line contact (really, point contact at tangency) caused distortion of even hard-plated surfaces over time; some but not all of this is relieved with either Wagner-throttle servo assist or "steam actuated" valves (as vertically in British Caprotti and somewhat dottily in Jones) which don't have necessarily heavy spring preload on the valves to "debounce" them in service, or require desmo.
I'd expect springs to be the excuse when the steam-valve maintenance gets troublesome, as it surely would in a post-'48 BR sort of shop environment, and even progressive springs effectively debouncing poppets at a meaningful rotational speed to justify poppets in the first place are going to play hob with the adjustable Reidinger nightmare box, sooner or later. Of course the thermodynamic improvements weren't really there for cutoffs shorter than about 15%, nor I think were compression effects correctly considered in designing the exhaust cutoff duration and timing arrangements. So it was an incompletely thought-through solution for a problem it created itself ... not an auspicious start to a revolution.
I don't think I answered Overmod's question about Reidinger valve gear in my last attempt, so I kept looking. Here is the patent, issued in 1940:
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/2210328.html
I found it quite confusing at first, until I realised that it was a camshaft that allowed the cams to rotate independently of eachother. thus allowing conventional cams and followers to be used in conjunction with "infinitely" variable cutoff.
It does appear to be an extremely complex solution to the problem, but it must have worked, at least by 1949 when the D49 4-4-0 was tested on the testr plant at Rugby. One of the five 2-6-0s was tested there in 1954, so someone must have thought that it was a practical solution.
The design looks like it was intended as a a "drop in" replacement for the fixed step cams in conventional rotary cam Lentz valve gear. The mechanism for rotating the cams used a transverse rack arranged exactly like the rack for shifting cams on Lentz RC valve gear. In fact Reidinger gear was sometimes called "type RR" suggesting it was marketed by Davey Paxman, the licensees of Lentz gear.
https://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/lentzloco.htm
Scrolling down gives a good view (if inverted) of the Lentz RC gear as applied to the LNER D49.
While on the subject, here is a photo of the second Reidinger D49
The LMS 2-6-0s had a rotary drive on each side...
I haven't found anything on the steam actuated valves on LNER 365, but it appears that the other locmotives had spring actuated valves.
Overmod PRR was NOT happy with them by 1940
Probably more like a spat within the family than a knock-down drag-out barroom brawl. Kind of like when your younger brother borrows your best sport coat for a hot date, or worse, like borrowing your car without asking permission for the same date.
Yeah, you're plenty PO'd, but you get over it.
The problem basically is that no matter how much you make a K4 better, it's still only a six-coupled locomotive, and there are hard limits on how large a train you can pull. Remember that there is very little that an articulated locomotive with twelve 80" drivers and 27"x28" cylinders can't pull, even at 205 pathetic psi, and that is the zero-added-cost locomotive alternative available to PRR (thanks in part to its massive over-ordering of them very late in the game) any day. ALL the duplexes presumed less overkill (in fact the T1 bent over backward to cost much less than a 4-8-4, which may make us snigger a bit in hindsight but is certainly visible in design analysis) and if you REALLY want overkill, imagine a couple of 5399-modded K4s needing to be doubleheaded. (Perhaps, if all went well, on a Cincinnati service...?
As soon as you say "4-8-4" with reference to a Lima M1 proposal, you're already talking much more rebuild than any straight eight-coupled is worth to the PRR. And since both Snyder preheaters and the benefits of better waterleg circulation were very well known to Woodard by 1940, it's almost inexcusable to think that all that money for an 8-coupled rebuild, when a 10-coupled duplex had far more available horsepower for far less augment, could possibly be justified.
Keep in mind this was also the era in which the direct-drive steam turbine a la 6200 was being evolved, and a 4-8-4 version of this was carried all the way into Westinghouse promotional literature in 1948. That (with at least the two-speed reversible planetary Westinghouse patented for the arrangement after the war) would have been the thing to build if you wanted eight-coupled that made good use of a two-axle trailing truck. (Not to mention what would happen if you put a Bowes drive on it, instead of playing with Too Much Horsepower For Your Water with 9000hp single-unit V1 variants...)
While I certainly wouldn't put it past Baldwin to try a bit of skulduggery, remember that PRR was NOT happy with them by 1940, having detected the hand in the cookie jar (in retrospect, I think part of the eventual failure of the BCR coal-burning turbine scam was related to institutional memory of the severe burning PRR took on the S1). Since on first principles alone the Lima proposal wasn't likely to fly, I don't think we need to follow the conspiracy-theory very far even if it were objectively true...
OvermodHad Woodard made the far more sensible suggestion of improving the M1's valves and superheater along the lines of what proved successful on 5399
I thought Woodard's proposal in July 1940 included the improvement of the M1s' superheater, larger steam passages connecting the cylinder, and the front-end throttle as well because #5399 got these treatments in early 1940. But I don't know the detail of his ideas on modernizing the M1s. A modernized M1s would have been a game-changing project, I believe duplex believers in Baldwin and PRR foresaw that. The success of #5399 wasn't good news but an eyesore to Baldwin's plan (which was using PRR as a stage to demonstrate and to prove the rigid-frame duplex concept would work well), let alone the modification of the M1s. It is a reasonable presumption that Baldwin played a role in stopping Lima's proposal from happening.
OvermodNote that PRR while they tested lightweight roller rods on a K4 did not put a set of 5399 at any time -- which would have been the most logical of any PRR engine at the time to receive them.
If #5399 equipped with lightweight roller rods, and even newer drivers, that would have made this engine a perfect upgrade example. But at the time, PRR and Baldwin had already been working hard on rigid-frame duplex like the S1, later the T1 and Q1, something so much bigger, powerful, and faster (including acceleration rate) than an upgraded K4s like the #5399. They probably didn't want to spend extra money to make #5399 even better.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
OvermodThere's a little more to that story than you indicate.
You're absolutely right Mod-man, I was just trying to keep it simple!
Jones1945In July 1940, Lima approached the PRR with a proposal to rebuild an M1 into a 4-8-4 equipped with Franklin Oscillating Cam Poppet Valves. Will Woodard from Lima felt that the M1 had much room for improvement.
In any case, I think the more capable superheater, combined with a type A system sized to deliver the mass flow of the larger valves in the M1a, would have produced dramatically better high-speed horsepower; a little better balancing (the stumbling block here being that the expense of Timken roller rods was still perceived as a 'passenger-only' requirement -- and while this is before the 610 testing, I saw no indication in the postmortem comments by Cover on that testing that would indicate he saw value in using that approach on an engine with a 72" wheel)
Note that PRR while they tested lightweight roller rods on a K4 did not put a set of 5399 at any time -- which would have been the most logical of any PRR engine at the time to receive them. Not on the Q1 either, despite 77" drivers, and perhaps for the best not on the Q2, which would probably have had exponentially more buckled lightweight components...
Would Lima have gotten the contract to modify additional M1s if the test unit had proven as phenomenal an improvement as 5399? My guess is, as above, that Baldwin would "underbid" (perhaps nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more) and do the fleet mods ... just in time for the wartime traffic, perhaps?
Flintlock76According to the George Drury book on American steam Alco had done some steam developmental work for the PRR only to have the contract given to Baldwin.
To me this was one of the more appalling injustices in locomotive history!
Part of the problem could have been the Pennsy's symbiotic relationship with Baldwin. Alco tried, but gave up on doing business with the PRR after several attempts. According to the George Drury book on American steam Alco had done some steam developmental work for the PRR only to have the contract given to Baldwin. It wouldn't surprise me if something similar happened to Lima.
OvermodNow, I still don't quite understand why PRR didn't do any poppet/lightweight rod conversions on the M1 chassis: that would promise to be groundbreaking.
In July 1940, Lima approached the PRR with a proposal to rebuild an M1 into a 4-8-4 equipped with Franklin Oscillating Cam Poppet Valves. Will Woodard from Lima felt that the M1 had much room for improvement. PRR wasn't interested so Lima got no further with this proposal. A comment was made in Hirsimaki's book that M1s were freight engines (nope, they were dual-purpose locomotives) and this wasn't the type of service poppet valves were suited for (sounds like an excuse).
Steam-actuated popple valves designed by Engineer of Tests L.B Jones were applied to #5346 in June 1940. They proved unsuccessful.
I would love to see a fully upgraded and streamlined PRR M1s fleet hauling heavy named trains like The General and Trail Blazer on the west end of PRR's system.
Overmod M636C A number of LMS "Black 5" locomotives were built in 1947-48 with rotary drive from the second (driving) coupled axle. Can you, once and for all, resolve the difference between British Caprotti and 'Reidinger'? From what I know, Reidinger had the driveshaft only on one side, driving both cams (and I don't think they had the flexible coupling in the center that the shaft in an FM 38D OP engine does) whereas British Caprotti, like Franklin type B, has a separate shaft for each side. Differences in the actual cam follower and valve operation I couldn't make out from the small drawings I had.
M636C A number of LMS "Black 5" locomotives were built in 1947-48 with rotary drive from the second (driving) coupled axle.
Can you, once and for all, resolve the difference between British Caprotti and 'Reidinger'? From what I know, Reidinger had the driveshaft only on one side, driving both cams (and I don't think they had the flexible coupling in the center that the shaft in an FM 38D OP engine does) whereas British Caprotti, like Franklin type B, has a separate shaft for each side. Differences in the actual cam follower and valve operation I couldn't make out from the small drawings I had.
The whole thing is more complicated than you suggest...
Reidinger gear was applied to a total of seven locomotives (but one set was successively applied to two locomotives, so there were only six sets of valve gear).
Your description applied to the one set that was moved, first applied to LNER D49 4-4-0 365 and later moved to sister 361 (BR 62764).
All locomotives with Reidinger gear were built with rotary cam Lentz gear with stepped cams with limited fixed cutoff sttings.The Reidinger patent covered continuously variable cams to give variable cutoff settings.
I don't know to what extent the original Lentz valves and layout were maintained, but the external appearance of the Reidinger modified locomotives was not significantly changed.
The LNER locomotives, both RC Lentz and Reidinger were driven by a shaft from a bevel gearbox on the right hand side only. The Reidinger unit had the bevel gearbox at the cylinders mounted outside the cylinder casing while the Lentz engines had it (just?) inside the casing. These were three cylinder locomotives with 120 degree cranks.
The other five locomotives were LMS Fowler Class 5 2-6-0s which were two cylinder locomotives with bevel gear drive on each side.
LNER 365 was built with RC Lentz gear in 1934 and was converted to Reidinger (with steam actuated valves) in 1939. 365 gave trouble in service and after the bevel gear drive was damaged in 1941 it was taken out of service. Edward Thompson rebuilt it with two inside cylinders with piston valves.
The valve gear was retained and fitted to 62764 in 1949, but in this case the original valves with spring actuation were retained. the locomotive was extensively tested on the Rugby static test plant, and it returned to service and retained the Reidinger gear until withdrawal in the 1960s.
The five Fowler 2-6-0s built in 1931, were rebuilt with Reidinger gear in 1953, possibly as a result of the tests on 62764, and they also kept the Reidinger gear until withdrawal.
Since it was based on RC Lentz conversions, I assume that Reidinger valve gear had the poppet valves arranged horizontally above the cylinders while British Caprotti had the valves arranged vertically above the cylinders.
The BR standard Caprotti locomotives had steam actuated valves, and I assume the last two LMS Class 5s with outside rotary drive also had steam actuated valves. I can't say about the earlier LMS Class 5s with the inside rotary drive that I mentioned earlier.
M636CA number of LMS "Black 5" locomotives were built in 1947-48 with rotary drive from the second (driving) coupled axle.
Overmod M636C He also said "since the drive for the gears came from the locomotive crossheads only, it was neccesary to cross the drive over inside the box to get the motion in the correct phase to drive the respective links." I believe that is a necessity for any crosshead drive, going back to the earliest examples which are I believe in British practice. See also the Berry accelerator gear (on Dr. Richard Leonard's site) for a different application of the principle.
M636C He also said "since the drive for the gears came from the locomotive crossheads only, it was neccesary to cross the drive over inside the box to get the motion in the correct phase to drive the respective links."
I believe that is a necessity for any crosshead drive, going back to the earliest examples which are I believe in British practice.
See also the Berry accelerator gear (on Dr. Richard Leonard's site) for a different application of the principle.
The two designs that come to mind are G.J Churchward's first "Star", no 40, later 4000 and Deeley's 999 class 4-4-0. It was not widely used apart from these eleven locomotives in total. Both these locomotive types had inside cylinders and valve gear, although No 4000 also had outside cylinders with the valves operated by rocking arms.
Inside rotary drive to poppet valve gear was quite common with British applications of Caprotti gear, including export locomotives. A number of LMS "Black 5" locomotives were built in 1947-48 with rotary drive from the second (driving) coupled axle.
M636CI think the rotary drive on the locomotive axle would be for a lubricating oil pump.
I must be getting my Franklin Type A & B confused. I know that on some installations the "rotary" drive is quite obvious, linked to the crank pin the way it is. Seeing the photo of the right-angle axle gear reducer mounted on the axle that the PRR 5399 simply had the rotational drive shaft between the drivers, essentially hidden from view.
This patent drawing shows the Type B if I'm not mistaken.
Franklin Rotary by Edmund, on Flickr
Solid documentation is certainly hard to come by! Looking at the arrangement for the Type A, I can not see where the right-angle drive as shown in the Hagley photo series would have been applied.
Franklin-Type-A by Edmund, on Flickr
There certainly must have been a great deal of head-scratching and perhaps a grumble or two from the Lima engineers tasked with mounting that cam box ahead of the steam chest. From what I've read, Franklin (Lima) covered the cost of the installation in hopes of selling the PRR on the idea.
Regards, Ed
M636CHe also said "since the drive for the gears came from the locomotive crossheads only, it was neccesary to cross the drive over inside the box to get the motion in the correct phase to drive the respective links."
gmpullman Franklin rotary poppet [valve] gear drive, probably located on #1 axle. Poppet_drive by Edmund, on Flickr PRR 5399. PRR Photo E12275, Hagley Trust. This view better illustrates the levers that communicated the cam box with the combination lever as discussed above: Franklin by Edmund, on Flickr Regards, Ed
Franklin rotary poppet [valve] gear drive, probably located on #1 axle.
Poppet_drive by Edmund, on Flickr
PRR 5399. PRR Photo E12275, Hagley Trust.
This view better illustrates the levers that communicated the cam box with the combination lever as discussed above:
Franklin by Edmund, on Flickr
I think the rotary drive on the locomotive axle would be for a lubricating oil pump. Vernon Smith, who was involved in the design of the gear on 5399, says "the cams to operate (the poppet valves) were placed in a double deck cam box that required an oil pump to lubricate the upper cam and rollers".
He also said "since the drive for the gears came from the locomotive crossheads only, it was neccesary to cross the drive over inside the box to get the motion in the correct phase to drive the respective links."
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter