Imaginary Locomotives

[talisman56]

Been mucking up HSTs again. I present the high speed DMU:

 

HST DMU.jpg

 

Uses the standard HST mk3 platform but the power car is in the middle. Each vehicle is individual so the formation can be chopped about as required. Guard compartment in power car (can't see that lasting!), can also work with class 43 to make longer sets, etc.

 

The only problem is the standard class passengers customers who are in the end remote from the buffet car in the first two can't get refreshments...

Edited August 8, 2018 by talisman56

[Satan's Goldfish]

The only problem is the standard class passengers customers who are in the end remote from the buffet car in the first two can't get refreshments...

 

Valid point. A trolley service may be a better option.

[Mr_Tilt]

The other option for the HSDMU would be add a standard class buffet car aswell so that both 1st class and standard class will have food provided instead of a trolley service.

 

That was pretty much the solution they used on the APT-Ps.

 

But no matter HOW much extra they paid, standard class passengers couldn't eat in the restaurant cars as they couldn't get through the Power Cars. 

[runs as required]

THIS IS A REPLY TO

from  sem34090

OK, so I posted this on my layout thread here: http://www.rmweb.co....ning/?p=3258288

 

But figured I may get some more useful feedback on the design here! Your thoughts and critique please!

Another comment:

It is useful in doodling "imaginaries" in boring meetings notebooks not just to sketch side elevations but instead develop layered sections i.e. shewing actual diameteter of driving wheel / crank axle (while mindful of inside valve eccentrics & gear); boiler dia./ firebox; frame (int/ext or sandwich) and springing.

 

This doesn't half improve your own 'check list' while looking over preserved artefacts when visiting places like Shildon.

(Advice from perhaps the silliest M.Inst of Imaginary Loco Engs. on this thread)

dh

Edited August 9, 2018 by runs as required

[griffgriff]

The only problem is the standard class passengers customers who are in the end remote from the buffet car in the first two can't get refreshments...

Shear luxury! We of the 2nd classes were remote from the WC when riding Thumpers on the SR!

 

Griff

[runs as required]

Shear luxury! We of the 2nd classes were remote from the WC when riding Thumpers on the SR!

I'm sure I could p inside a Hastings Thumper after a session in the pub down beside Charing Cross after work of a Friday

dh

[runs as required]

In my suggestion the restaurant cars would be either side of the power car so 1 on the 1st class side the other in the standard class, therefore giving the respective classes their own restaurant car.

Reminds of my wife's advice from her mum (long time manageress of Kendal Milne's Deansgate restaurant in Manchester)

"I should take the French option at school dear. You might get invited out by a Gentleman when you're older; it would so help to read a menu in French."

dh

[talisman56]

Shear luxury! We of the 2nd classes were remote from the WC when riding Thumpers on the SR!

 

Griff

 

Hence on the Pompey-Bristol TM services in the 70s when the booked stock was 2x 3H, the poor souls aboard would dub them 'bladder-stretchers'...

[talisman56]

I'm sure I could p inside a Hastings Thumper after a session in the pub down beside Charing Cross after work of a Friday

dh

 

Within or without the provided facility at the end of the corridor?

[griffgriff]

Hence on the Pompey-Bristol TM services in the 70s when the booked stock was 2x 3H, the poor souls aboard would dub them 'bladder-stretchers'...

We did.... and I was only going as far as Salisbury ..... and it remained that way way we’ll into NSE days...

 

 

Thinking about it the BOC should have selected 100m athletes from those competing in the platform 6 dash

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

I've just found a pic of a loco I played about with a few years ago, sorry for the poor pic.

 

manna

[LNWR18901910]

G'Day Folks

 

I've just found a pic of a loco I played about with a few years ago, sorry for the poor pic.

 

manna

Marvellous! It must be a very powerful shunter!

[LNWR18901910]

Remember the tank engine from the film The Great St. Trinian's Train Robbery? One of the J94 0-6-0ST tank engines was altered to resemble a J50 tank engine. Is it possible to make one of them?

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

i never made the shunter, just put the body on the chassis, but, yes it would have been a powerful shunter.

 

Both the j50 and the J94  are available RTR.

 

manna

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

And in non-imaginary mode, Hornby have obligingly produced the J50 model at circa 310g/11oz. Rather a good representation of the J50's heavy shunter design, which ranged from over 57T to somewhere in excess of 58T as finally developed, very much heavier than was typical for UK 0-6-0T designs. (The following and also non-imaginary ex-GCR 0-8-0 rebuilds to produce a 70T 0-8-0T seem to have been a case of 'too much already', probably because the LNER already had two eight coupled hump shunter designs in service, and the 350hp diesel design was also already working and demonstrating its advantages over steam.)

[The Johnster]

But a J50 is not really a shunter, in the sense of a loco specifically designed for shunting.  It is a modern iteration of the Victorian 0-6-0 tank, which, while it was certainly and very frequently used for shunting, was also conceived with local trip, transfer, pickup, and ecs work at speeds up to around 40mph in mind.  The Hunslet 18½" 'Austerity' saddle tank is a pure shunting engine, not much use above 15mph, what the Americans would describe as a yard switcher, and similar in leading dimensions including wheelbase and all-up weight to an 08; approximately equal in power as well.  A Hunslet 18½"  with a J50 outline, with the advantage of very good forward visibility from the cab in regard of staff coupling or uncoupling and having to go between the loco and the train, while preserving the saddle tank format's access to the inside cylinders and gubbins, might have been a very useful thing indeed, but it's advantage over the saddle tank version would be minimal as the saddle tank was pretty good anyway, and might affect the riding, not the design's strongest point to start with.  Tank capacity would also be compromised, with the consequent effect on tractive effort.

 

I am a little surprised sometimes at the undoubted and undeniable success of this late steam design; one might have expected 08 clones of various descriptions to have been the norm during the late 40s through to the late 60s, but the 18½" ruled more or less supreme for that 20 years for heavy industrial use despite the challenge of the Janus and other diesel intruders.  The reason is to be found in the loco's legendary robustness and simplicity of maintenance, along with low running costs and adaptability, with Lempor and similar, to single manning and specific working conditions.  Military surplus examples were in high demand and were low priced of course, but Hunslet and their licenced associates were still knocking out brand new ones into the early 70s, and they lasted another decade in commercial (by which I mean non-heritage) use.

 

They are dimensionally similar to the Southern's USAs and GW 15xx as well, and these locos can also be described as pure shunting engines despite the 15xx use on Old Oak ecs work; they were not very good at this (at least in comparison to any other design that had been employed in this work) but were apparently suitably modern looking to avoid offending passengers on the lawn at Paddington who objected to the appearance of a dome on top of a boiler!

Edited August 11, 2018 by The Johnster

[Northmoor]

I am a little surprised sometimes at the undoubted and undeniable success of this late steam design;

The reason is to be found in the loco's legendary robustness and simplicity of maintenance, along with low running costs and adaptability, with Lempor and similar, to single manning and specific working conditions.  Military surplus examples were in high demand and were low priced of course, but Hunslet and their licenced associates were still knocking out brand new ones into the early 70s, and they lasted another decade in commercial (by which I mean non-heritage) use.

I think Hunslet produced the last new steam locos in 1971, but the last standard gauge "Austerities" were built in '64.  Any supplied Hunslet after that would have been 2nd-hand and overhauled for re-sale.

 

In about a hundred years time, when all the steam locos we have around us now have been retired (and replaced by new builds), I am confident that the last "original" standard gauge British steam loco will have been an Austerity saddle tank.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

But a J50 is not really a shunter, in the sense of a loco specifically designed for shunting...

 I expect the GNR locomotive committee will consider themselves duly chastised for ordering such an inappropriate design for shunting.

Edited August 11, 2018 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[LNWR18901910]

G'Day Folks

 

I've just found a pic of a loco I played about with a few years ago, sorry for the poor pic.

 

manna

What origin is this tank engine? Great Eastern? Great Northern? North Eastern? Midland & Great Northern?

[The Johnster]

 I expect the GNR locomotive committee will consider themselves duly chastised for ordering such an inappropriate design for shunting.

 

No they won't, because they didn't order it just for shunting, they ordered for shunting and the sort of work I suggested, which if performed perfectly adequately without getting in the way of main line traffic as a short wheelbased shunting engine would have.  And which it's successor, the 08, did!  The J50 was a very sensible 0-6-0T, a development of previous GN saddle tank types in an improvement on what was a already a tried and tested concept.  They were as at home on a local trip working or ecs duty as yard pilot; powerful, reliable, and easy and cheap (by the standards of the day) to maintain and prepare/dispose.

Edited August 12, 2018 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

No they won't, because they didn't order it just for shunting, they ordered for shunting and the sort of work I suggested, which if performed perfectly adequately without getting in the way of main line traffic as a short wheelbased shunting engine would have...

 Sorry, but you are simply peddling your opinion that a shunter had to be a short wheelbase loco. Not for the GNR it didn't, and the J50 was a shunting engine in their opinion. It was used, as had been their earlier designs of shunting engines, for trip and transfer work in addition to yard shunting. Wheelbase has nothing to do with it. Shunting engine.

[melmerby]

The standard shunting engine on the GWR from the 1930s was the 57XX pannier tank (and similar predecessors) and it had the same wheelbase as the Dean Goods & 2251 classes and longer wheelbase than the 54XX and similar which were not considered shunting engines

The fact that the 57XX was also suitable for light goods & passenger services as well, show that a shunting engine could be versatile and not restricted to just one task.

True shunter only classes were the small 1361/66 classes and the later 15XX but even they had days off!

 

Keith

Edited August 12, 2018 by melmerby

[Compound2632]

Likewise, the LMS standard 3F 0-6-0T, developed from S.W. Johnson's 2441 Class - many of which were built with condensing equipment for working mineral traffic over the Widened Lines to South London coal depots, also five being sent new to Bromsgrove for banking on the Lickey, but otherwise a shunting engine. Nevertheless, the LMS found the design to be just the thing for working the North London Railway suburban services, with I believe as many as sixty of the standard engines allocated to Devons Road at one time.

 

Going further back in time, S.W. Johnson's earlier design of 0-6-0T was certainly predominantly used for shunting but the first variant (1102 Class) was used to work the whole of the Swansea Vale and Hereford, Hey & Brecon sections and five of the 1377 Class were given full cabs and sent to work the Keithley & Worth Valley branch. 

 

Anyway, we have the standard shunting engine of three of the big four (3F, J50, 57xx) also being used for main and/or branch line work, for which they were evidently adequately suited.

[Northroader]

I was riding behind the driver in one of the old dmus on a Wellington Birmingham service, and a 57xx came the other way running light at speed on the main line, so I got a head on view of it. The amount of “bounce” as it came towards us was quite amazing.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Two cylinder simple steam locos with no carryng wheels are particularly prone to this, because there is always a swaying couple present, and little to help with damping those forces in motion. Guiding leading wheels or trucks were not added to locos intended to regularly run faster on a whim, the improvement in stability so obtained is very marked. I heard the opinion expressed many years ago that the term 'Pug' often applied to 0-4-0T locos was the regular C19th contraction from 'pugilist' (U for 'boxer') because of the pronounced yawing that these typically exhibit as soon as they get up any speed.