Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

During my brief foray into freelance 009 many years ago, which was enormous fun if nothing else, I determined that I was not going to fall into the 'unlikelyness' trap that seemed common in this genre.  Using Eggar and Lilliput RTR with kit or modified N chassis/body bodges, I applied some rules.

 

Rule 1. This is basically Rule 1.

 

Rule 2.  Locos had to look as if they would actually work, i.e. chimneys in line with cylinders, rear drivers not fouling fireboxes, that sort of thing.

 

Rule 3.  No cheating, so no inside cylinders, tramroad skirts to hide motion that wasn't there, or any of that sort of shennanigans.

 

Rule 4.  Trains made up correctly to Board of Trade requirements in terms of continuous brake, brake vans, etc.

 

Rule 5.  If in doubt, refer to Rule 1.

 

I had 2 prairies on Minitrix small Ivatt chassis, one with a modified Airfix pug construction kit body and one with a home made plasticard box tank arrangement with the smokebox protruding.  Both had home made plastcard cabs, and the saddle tank had a bunker as well; they didn't look too bad...

 

i like to think like this too, when drawing up a loco to build i make a scale drawing of a believable loco and make a model of it not just making a drawing of a model and then making it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The 5AT was never built because there was not considered to be a viable economic case for it such as was necessary to attract the financial backing for the project, despite the enthusiasm and clear professionalism of those involved.  My personal opinion is that some of the performance claims as to load and speed might have been achievable in exceptional circumstances, but I doubt it, and that this did the project no favours.  

 

Building steam locomotives is a costly business, and there has to be a good chance of a return, if not a profit, to justify it; this goes back to Rocket and beyond.  Some of the replica locos currently under construction have major components from donor Barry engines, which reduces the initial cost and make projects more viable; AFAIK only the P2 and the US project to build a new Pennsy T4 are actually currently attempting brand new locos from scratch.  

 

My personal view, and it is only that of an enthusiast and not a person with any practical knowledge of the issues surrounding designing or building steam locos, the 5AT does not sufficiently develop the Stephensonian locomotive to a worthwhile degree.  I would want to see more done to eliminate hammer blow, and computerised stoking and steam production, and servo driven computer controlled valve gear, along with cab forward design so that the single manned driver can concentrate on driving the thing.  Water is a major problem if a loco is to run for more than a short distance on a regular basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

What might be a cool 'what if' to do is taking a UK steam design, and 'handing it over' to Mr. Whardale in the fictional 1982, off the back of rebuilding 'The Red Devil', and getting him to do 'the works' on it.

What about 9F No.92085, rescued from Barry Scrapyard 2 years earlier?

Edited by Corbs
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What might be a cool 'what if' to do is taking a UK steam design, and 'handing it over' to Mr. Whardale in the fictional 1982, off the back of rebuilding 'The Red Devil', and getting him to do 'the works' on it.

What about 9F No.92085, rescued from Barry Scrapyard 2 years earlier?

 

I wish someone would do it for real... grieves me that the steam world is so conservative.  I get heritage, but surely one of the hundreds of essentially unimproved Victorian ex-Barry wrecks could have been rebuilt to second generation steam principles....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The steam world is full of people reliving their memories (or reviving a history that they don't remember). And there is nothing wrong with that, of course. And as the engines are mostly owned by individuals/ groups who only have the one example, and they understandably want it to be "authentic" to what it was. If there was a group who owned 5 black 5s or something, I could imagine one being used for more adventurous things, in the same way that the Class 50 alliance has been able to have a lot of fun with paintbrushes because they have about 5 class 50s.

 

Personally I'd be all for updating an old loco, but I don't own one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. In the world of narrow gauge there are far more 'new builds', and modifications. Granted it does not cost as much as standard gauge, but I seem to remember reading a coupe of years ago that the Welsh Highland Railway were looking at buildng a completely new loco to replace the Garratts , using the experience of running them.

If you compare standard gauge modelling and narrow gauge modelling, you tend to find standard gauge is far more traditional(conservative?), where as narrow gauge models will often be experimental. All those road vehicles adapted to run on rails, and then you find that has actually happened on the Romanian forestry narrow gauge, with moden Ford Transit vans happily running on narrow gauge. Wonder if they got the idea from us modellers!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to change subject to more modern things if you'll humour me!

 

Let's say a modern container flat has 2'6" diameter wheels on its bogies and is good for 75mph. The locomotive pulling said flat has a wheel diameter of a nominal 3'4". Is there any logical reason why a traction motor couldn't be fitted to a locomotive with 2'6" diameter wheel sets as they should also be good for 75mph?

 

I have an idea, but it needs that principle to work first...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All those road vehicles adapted to run on rails, and then you find that has actually happened on the Romanian forestry narrow gauge, with moden Ford Transit vans happily running on narrow gauge. Wonder if they got the idea from us modellers!

Road vehicles being adapted to run on rails goes back to the Model T Ford!

 

The Selsey Tramway was a notorious example - and on standard gauge too.

 

603484-1500x1020.jpg

Edited by JimC
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that the 5AT Project has so failed to attract funding - compared to, I think, too many recreations of mediocre locos that at the time of deciding upon the National collection were not considered worth preserving.

Two factors operating against this venture I think.

 

The 'recreations' are driven by nostalgia, which cannot exist for a design that has never had a physical existence.

 

Anyone with an ounce of sense will have reviewed the previous 'leap forward' designs of the final years of steam and recall that they all had problems, despite the best of them having really capable engineers with deep experience in steam behind them. The oft cited Red Devil was not unanimously accepted as the unqualified operational success that its promoters would have you believe: and there was not the economic case then to do the necessary work to fully develop it into a reliable service job. Attempting a yet more ambitious 'stretch' experiment now, without the lifetimes of engineering experience in steam development available fifty and more years ago is going to be disproportionately expensive. People with that sort of money to hurl at problems are trying for space...

 

...Let's say a modern container flat has 2'6" diameter wheels on its bogies and is good for 75mph. The locomotive pulling said flat has a wheel diameter of a nominal 3'4". Is there any logical reason why a traction motor couldn't be fitted to a locomotive with 2'6" diameter wheel sets as they should also be good for 75mph?...

 

 No logically disqualifying reason whatsoever, and also technically fully possible. There may be traction operating somewhere in the world that conforms to your requirement.

 

There are plenty of good technical reasons why a larger wheel diameter is much to be preferred mind you, as demonstrated in general practise in the UK and elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 No logically disqualifying reason whatsoever, and also technically fully possible. There may be traction operating somewhere in the world that conforms to your requirement.

 

There are plenty of good technical reasons why a larger wheel diameter is much to be preferred mind you, as demonstrated in general practise in the UK and elsewhere.

Thanks, good enough for me!....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

AFAIK only the P2 and the US project to build a new Pennsy T4 are actually currently attempting brand new locos from scratch.  

F4 & Clan (not that they've achieved a great deal yet), Patriot (very few used parts), G5 (all new). 

 

DLM in Switzerland have built brand new steam for one of the mountain railways and this was on the basis of a commercial business case - the steam loco was more economic that either a diesel or electric alternative, even without allowance for increased passenger numbers attracted by steam haulage.

 

I wish someone would do it for real... grieves me that the steam world is so conservative.  I get heritage, but surely one of the hundreds of essentially unimproved Victorian ex-Barry wrecks could have been rebuilt to second generation steam principles....

I agree to an extent, although doesn't the restored "Duke of Gloucester" incorporate some modifications which were planned but not added before original withdrawal.

 

(I won't bring up the GWS creations relying on recovered components from types already represented in preservation, because we'll get overwhelmed by visiting froth from the National Preservation web forum).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Road vehicles being adapted to run on rails goes back to the Model T Ford!

These were never run on the road as far as I know, based on road vehicle design, where as the Romanian forestry ones are actual road vehicles converted. They are also standard gauge which is easier. The Ford(Crewe tractor)  used in WW1 was in effect a special as well, and could be switched between road and rail,and was not that wide. Modern transit vans are quite wide compared to narrow gauge track, and suspect anyone doing one on a model would be told it was not possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

How big are the wheels on an 800? Those are specified for 140mph.

I don't suppose the wheels on a e320, DB ICE or a  SNCF TGV are any different and they go a lot faster.

 

It's probably all about getting the gears in to drive the axle from the motor's shaft.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

... doesn't the restored "Duke of Gloucester" incorporate some modifications which were planned but not added before original withdrawal...

 DoG got at least two outright design revisions to correct faults and limitations principally in draughting, that were the results of NIH attitudes. Specifically ashpan damper aperture arrangements and the Kylchap ejector exhaust, which transformed an indifferently steaming boiler into a reliable performer.

 

The engine element was known to be good from BR service experience, but it needed sufficient supply from a freely steaming boiler to reliably deliver class 8 output. The valve gear is the best in service of any class 8P. Apply that to an already proven excellent design like an A4, and there might be a story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why i asked the wheel diameter/traction motor question:

 

The modular, ISO container based, powered intermodal wagon concept!

 

The idea is a pair of 60ft container flats are equipped with traction motors on each axle (8 in total), a control cab, and the number of Gensets in 10ft containers added decides how powerful the unit is. There's a lot more to it than that, it's all in the drawings below.

 

post-9147-0-18388000-1524937546_thumb.jpg

 

post-9147-0-29365500-1524937805_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

Just how powerful a generator can fit in a 10ft box these days? At least it doesn't need to go faster than 75mph.

 

Sorry all the containers look the same, i really should have hacked apart more than 1x Hornby KFA for this so Units stood out a bit more.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that the design parameters of a locomotive driving wheel, which needs to withstand the stresses of transmitting the drivecto the railhead, are completely different from the parameters for a carrying wheel?

 

EMU wheel pans at Wolverton;

 

post-10066-0-17131200-1524938805_thumb.jpeg

 

post-10066-0-87188300-1524938825_thumb.jpeg

Edited by rockershovel
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kinda why I asked the question, I've no idea! But mk1 coaching stock had a mixture of non-powered and powered bogie types all the way up to the powered ones breaking 100mph on the 309s. How fast and powerful were 4rep etc on the southern?

 

Obviously a bit more compact making it match the height of a KFA flat, but I did beef up the bogies a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why i asked the wheel diameter/traction motor question:

 

The modular, ISO container based, powered intermodal wagon concept!

 

The idea is a pair of 60ft container flats are equipped with traction motors on each axle (8 in total), a control cab, and the number of Gensets in 10ft containers added decides how powerful the unit is. There's a lot more to it than that, it's all in the drawings below.

 

attachicon.gifModule Intermodal Concept 1.jpg

 

attachicon.gifModule Intermodal Concept 2.jpg

 

Just how powerful a generator can fit in a 10ft box these days? At least it doesn't need to go faster than 75mph.

 

Sorry all the containers look the same, i really should have hacked apart more than 1x Hornby KFA for this so Units stood out a bit more.

 

erm...

 

post-238-0-10211800-1524939535_thumb.jpg

 

post-238-0-58206400-1524939545.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen that kit posted above, I'm coming out of Lawnmower leave and right back into design:consultancy with this 'Winner' class machine

Ladies and Gentlemen

Now, with privileged benefit of 21st century know-how, I re-present my post #3272  1961 concept for a Container-flat-steam-turbine-turf-burner-mobile-powerhouse

post-21705-0-10807900-1524961516.jpg

I realise Mr Bulleid was right in not worrying about the size of the Leader as a replacement for an M7 0-4-4T

My 2 coach length steam turbine has containerised turf already cut and dried ready for feeding onto the firebox conveyor.like toast

dh

:senile:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Haven’t the Americans been putting locos mid-train for years, to ease the load on the drawgear?

I think you are right but it seems more common these days to put some at the back to push.

 

e.g. Yesterday 28/4/2018 at around 1520 EDT thare was a long mixed freight on Horseshoe Curve (Altoona PA) with no less than 7 up front and 4 behind.

(Possibly not all were powering however)

 

Keith

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...