BernardTPM Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) It looks like the kind of forward looking thing that the GWR would never have considered in a million years Like gas turbine locos? The GWR ordered one of those and then there's all the streamline railcars too. Edited December 13, 2017 by BernardTPM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu4472ke Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 I've found my ages old cab forward at Dawlish lash up. Can't remember the imagined circumstances - mebbe one of my favourites which is WWII never happened, it was about 1942/3 and Collett had gone. There must have been oil firing here as well as on the Southern Pacific. cab forward castle.jpg Bound to cause a great deal of offence in certain quarters. dh If the British did a cab forward locomotive, I think it would make more sense for it to be like the American one, non streamlined, that way maintenance is easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 I would have thought they would have put the loco backwards and make the cab look like that of a class 08. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunslet Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Presumably the cab would have to be hinged to swing out of the way. Otherwise, how would one get to the smokebox to clean out tubes? The DB 05 003 had it's boiler reversed with the firebox at the front ! As usual the Douglas Self site explains. http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/05003/05003.htm Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu4472ke Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 I would have thought they would have put the loco backwards and make the cab look like that of a class 08. That's what I was thinking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu4472ke Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 On the subject of locomotives the Americans had, what about a 7F big boy? I think a 9F big boy would be a bit large. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu4472ke Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 On the subject of locomotives the Americans had, what about a 7F big boy? I think a 9F big boy would be a bit large. Not 7F big boy, 8F, but both would work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted December 13, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2017 How do you mean? Do you mean a mallett version? As the big boy was just one class of loco that was also a mallett. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu4472ke Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 How do you mean? Do you mean a mallett version? As the big boy was just one class of loco that was also a mallett. I'm not sure what you mean by mallet version Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted December 13, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) I got the spelling wrong. A Mallet locomotive is one that is articulated in a certain way. The rear driving wheel set is mounted rigidly to the frames, the front one is on a swivelling bogie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallet_locomotive Edited December 13, 2017 by Corbs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu4472ke Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 I got the spelling wrong. A Mallet locomotive is one that is articulated in a certain way. The rear driving wheel set is mounted rigidly to the frames, the front one is on a swivelling bogie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallet_locomotive A Mallet 7F or 8F would make total sense, and articulated in the same way as a big boy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Isn't a Mallet also a compound? Not a technology the Americans made much use of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted December 13, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2017 Isn't a Mallet also a compound? Not a technology the Americans made much use of.A true Mallet is a compound.Some of the later American Mallets weren’t, technically, Malletsbut they had the same arrangement of the rear set of drivers in a rigid frame, and the leading set of wheels articulated, with the hinge point between the two. Basically, the boiler got so long, it could no longer be supported by a rigid frame: 4-16-4 anyone? Even the Russians didn’t go quite that far... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted December 13, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 13, 2017 Yes that is true, the wikipedia link has all the info. Simple Mallets were found to be easier to deal with, apparently. Of course the great advantage of the non-UK loading gauge is the ability to put such a HUGE boiler atop the frames. The horwich mallet built by Michael Edge (I posted pics earlier in this thread) is a good looking British Mallet I think. You have to have small wheels otherwise the boiler becomes stupidly long and thin due to the height restriction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 What about this one from page 42? post-6959-0-87638900-1505689958.jpg Cheers David Good luck attempting that in 00 Scale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPH 603 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 The DB 05 003 had it's boiler reversed with the firebox at the front ! As usual the Douglas Self site explains. http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/05003/05003.htm Hope this helps. That was basically what I was thinking but with no streamlining. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 ... Simple Mallets were found to be easier to deal with, apparently. Of course the great advantage of the non-UK loading gauge is the ability to put such a HUGE boiler atop the frames. The Horwich mallet built by Michael Edge (I posted pics earlier in this thread) is a good looking British Mallet I think. You have to have small wheels otherwise the boiler becomes stupidly long and thin due to the height restriction. The better format for UK articulated standard gauge steam is as a result the Beyer-Garratt scheme. This enables a more ideally proportioned locomotive boiler with a large ashpan for superior draughting within our teeny weeny loading gauge, and was both well proven, and there were two well known designs actually in service on UK standard gauge. It is sobering to realise that the LNER U1 2-8-0+0-8-2T was too powerful as built for economic loading as a road engine in the prevailing conditions of the UK steam railway, and had development potential on that wheelbase to exceed 4,000 hp continuous output in main line (22T axleload) service. Likewise the LMS 2-6-0+0-6-2T actually built as a road engine, limited by engine design to circa 1,500 hp continuous and that only for as long as the bearings held out; the development potential on that wheelbase would be for 3,000hp. (Had Beyer's been given free hand in the original design, the LMS would have probably got a 2,000 hp continuous output goods loco very well suited to the steeply graded sections that carried heavy freight traffic,) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted December 14, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 14, 2017 Definitely. Of course the big downside of the design (as far as this thread goes) is that all Garratts tend to look like the others, whereas a Mallet is a more conventional looking loco where you can put more of the 'house style' on. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted December 14, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 14, 2017 A Mallet 7F or 8F would make total sense, and articulated in the same way as a big boy. I doubt that it could be kept within the the very restricted UK loading gauge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 I doubt that it could be kept within the the very restricted UK loading gauge. I agree, certainly a true compound mallet would have been extremely hard to fit within the UK loading gauge. And the additional complexities (read expense) of such lcoomotives would have put them at a disadvantage economically to conventional locomotives like the 8F or 9F which could do the job perfectly well already Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted December 14, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 14, 2017 Good luck attempting that in 00 Scale. Can't see that it would be that difficult. After all, the picture has been created from illustrations of 00 equipment. There are details that would need modifying. Flangeless centre drivers (as per a 9F), larger cylinders (or perhaps the unconventional Bulleid would have gone for two sets of cylinders, a 2-4-6-0?). I would quite like to have a go at this one. My only question mark is, what traffic on the Southern would have justified construction of this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted December 14, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) Can't see that it would be that difficult. After all, the picture has been created from illustrations of 00 equipment. There are details that would need modifying. Flangeless centre drivers (as per a 9F), larger cylinders (or perhaps the unconventional Bulleid would have gone for two sets of cylinders, a 2-4-6-0?). I would quite like to have a go at this one. My only question mark is, what traffic on the Southern would have justified construction of this? I had a go at the 2-10-0 a few pages ago with the flangeless centre driver, and larger smokebox and tender (based on David's design) I made the Q pacific at the same time. Edited December 14, 2017 by Corbs 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) An interesting what if in that context is "supposing Bulleid had got the job of simplifying and cheapening the Stanier 8F instead of Riddles"? What would Bulleid versions of the 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 Austerities have looked like? The Q1 casing seems like a start... Edited December 15, 2017 by JimC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Definitely. Of course the big downside of the design (as far as this thread goes) is that all Garratts tend to look like the others, whereas a Mallet is a more conventional looking loco where you can put more of the 'house style' on. This statement mounts a real challenge to all the Imgnry. Mech. Engs. (and their Chief Draughtsmen) who post on this thread So who can rise to Challenge No. 1: a BG in the 'house style' of the Highland's David Jones dh 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 A Standard class heavy shunter and trip freight engine. 32-360_1047004_Qty1_3.jpg Dragging this into the Mallet conversation; would a 0-6-6-0 standard freight tank work? Would need small drivers i imagine to help with cab access clearance and clearance under the boiler for the front driving set. (Same would also apply for a (very) large GWR prairie). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now