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

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.

attachicon.gifcab forward castle.jpg

Bound to cause a great deal of offence in certain quarters. :no:

 

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

  • RMweb Gold

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...

aa20.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

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

... 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

  • RMweb Gold

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • RMweb Gold

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

  • RMweb Gold

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)

post-898-0-78458100-1513265666_thumb.jpg

 

I made the Q pacific at the same time.

post-898-0-37340900-1513265750_thumb.jpg

Edited by Corbs
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by JimC
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:paint:

dh

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A Standard class heavy shunter and trip freight engine.

 

attachicon.gif32-360_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).

  • Like 1
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...