Imaginary Locomotives

[tomparryharry]

It is also a shame that people still keep trotting out the same old rubbish about the Midland.  Derby drawing office designed several 8 coupled designs during both Johnson and Deeley's times as well as a passenger compound 4-6-0.  The reason they were never built was the weight limit on the London Line imposed by the Civil engineers. The Civil engineers were obsessed with "weight per foot run" until the 1920s (the Highland CME also ran into the same problem with his “Rivers”).  The LMS Garratts got away with it because they spread the weight over a very long length in the same way as a pair of 4Fs.  Even the "Royal Scots" weren't allowed on that part of the Midland until well into the LMS era.

 

The Great Western also had this problem. However, they did indeed upgrade their lines to accept the higher locomotive axle weights. Little wonder, therefore, that No. 97 (look it up) could out-perform most, if not all, locomotives in its class.

 

Quite fleet of foot as well, so I'm told.

 

Ian.

 

PS. Wouldn't mind a look over an Austin 7.

[Regularity]

Sorry, didn't mean to sound as if I was Derby-bashing.

 

You might not, but I am about to!

0-6-0 inside cylinder tender locos were produced by all the big 4 up to and including the Second World War, when outside cylinder moguls would have been much better, and with hindsight it is difficult to see why beyond the need to replace like for like time expired Victorian museum pieces with modern, easily assembled and maintained locos.

 

The LNWR ceased building 0-6-0s about 1903/4, moving not to moguls but to 4-6-0s.

It is a shame that due to a number of their senior officers approaching retirement age, that the LNWR thinking did not have more influence on LMS thinking.

That said, the retention of inside cylinders showed that maybe they switched to ten wheelers slightly too soon?

More damning was the retrograde influence of Riddles on the BR standards. Yes, outside cylinders and motion and high foot plates were a significant step forward, but not compared to other parts of the world: the Britannia pacifics - much as I admire them - were little more in concept and overall design than a Pennsylvania Railroad K4s from 40 years before...

 

But anyone who has sat in on a board room meeting will be aware that sometimes the common sense approach is outweighed by personalities, and ultimately the key driver for decisions should be stakeholder value. Not just the share price, nor the return on capital, but also the long term value and cost.

 

We also should be careful of casting too much blame on engineers not being able to anticipate better understanding in the future when it comes to things like hammer-blow, bridge deflection, etc.

British loco design was hampered by a Victorian attitude for too long, while being overtaken by pretty much every other nation with any tradition in loco design.

 

But it wasn’t just attitude.

 

The railways made a big capital investment in the late Victorian/Edwardian era, and even without the Great War would have been constrained from further expenditure until they had shown a reasonable return. Lots of branchlines had small turntables which could only just cope with a large 0-6-0, and an outside cylinder 0-6-0 will “box” a lot on the track: a leading truck or bogie is really a sine qua non for adding outside cylinders, and the turntables would then need to be enlarged, so more capital expenditure on lines which rarely broke even.

 

Add to this the fact that after about 1870, investing in most of the bigger railway companies offered a steady, safe, long term return on capital, so governing bodies had to be very careful with new projects.

 

By the way, the Black 5 with Stephenson’s motion was highly regarded by those who drove it, with many feeling it was perfectly capable of class 6 duties.

All of which is debatably fact, but beyond doubt my opinion.  Nobody is compelled to take any notice of it, and other opinions are probably available, and may be better, though of course I think mine is best...

 

What a lovely, refreshing attitude!

 

One abbreviation (it’s not an acronym unless it is pronounceable and regularly said as such) which annoys me is “IMHO”. IMO is fine, but I always think, “If your opinion was truly humble, it wouldn’t be expressed”!

 

Let’s hear it for people being proud of their opinions, no matter how senseless they may be.

[Coryton]

One abbreviation (it’s not an acronym unless it is pronounceable and regularly said as such) which annoys me is “IMHO”. IMO is fine, but I always think, “If your opinion was truly humble, it wouldn’t be expressed”!

 

 

Some people interpret it as honest opinion...

[Regularity]

Some people interpret it as honest opinion...

Ah.

Why would an opinion not be honest?

[Regularity]

Not up to the photoshopping, but here’s a what if...

 

Take a Highland River, replace the boiler/firebox with a taper/Belpaire job, and increase the boiler pressure to create a class 5. I am hoping that the weight would not increase substantially.

 

Who then would need a Stanier Black 5, or indeed the Crab or Stanier mogul?

 

A slightly more open-minded approach to reviewing what they had inherited might have served the LMS very well.

[Velopeur]

.

 

British loco design was hampered by a Victorian attitude for too long, while being overtaken by pretty much every other nation with any tradition in loco design.

...  

 

Sorry, but I feel this completely ignores the excellent work done by British loco builders for railways overseas.

[JimC]

Why would an opinion not be honest?

 

You need to ask that on the net, the spiritual home of trolling and fake news?

 

A slightly more open-minded approach to reviewing what they had inherited might have served the LMS very well.

 

Wasn't loading gauge (wider at platform height than the GWR I believe) a significant problem with adopting Scots types on the wider LMS?

[brack]

Not up to the photoshopping, but here’s a what if...

 

Take a Highland River, replace the boiler/firebox with a taper/Belpaire job, and increase the boiler pressure to create a class 5. I am hoping that the weight would not increase substantially.

 

Who then would need a Stanier Black 5, or indeed the Crab or Stanier mogul?

 

A slightly more open-minded approach to reviewing what they had inherited might have served the LMS very well.

Just pressing the existing boiler (or a slightly beefier constructed one of similar design) from its 160lb to nearer the 225lb of a black five and it'd probably have proved a stronger loco. Funnily enough (in light of comments regarding our export designs and private builders) they were rumoured to have been based on a NBL design for the BB&CI

[runs as required]

Wasn't loading gauge (wider at platform height than the GWR I believe) a significant problem with adopting Scots types on the wider LMS?

 

I remember posting a quote from Vol 1 (p109) of the Cox books some months ago about this - I think on the (then very active) Loco design thread - Stanier when he moved to the LMS dispatched 3 Horwich Crabs with "lead fingers" around 314 notorious tight spots on the system and found "a negligible amount of setting back of platform stones" required for clearance and proved it largely a myth about outside cylinders on LNW and MR lines. They'd be banned for reasons other than clearance such as axle loading or curvature.

dh

Edited December 16, 2017 by runs as required

[Compound2632]

Just pressing the existing boiler (or a slightly beefier constructed one of similar design) from its 160lb to nearer the 225lb of a black five and it'd probably have proved a stronger loco. Funnily enough (in light of comments regarding our export designs and private builders) they were rumoured to have been based on a NBL design for the BB&CI

 

... but increased boiler pressure inevitably meant increased weight, until lightweight alloys became available.

 

For example, on the Midland, Johnson's 1357 Class 0-6-0s of 1878 had boilers pressed to 140 psi and came in at 34 tons 5 cwt 2 qtr; the last batches of the visually almost identical Class M, built in 1901-2, had boilers at 160 psi and were over two tons heavier at 36 tons 6 cwt 1 qtr. 

[talisman56]

Hmmmm.  Cylinders seem undernourished, and would look better with con rod on centre driver, and also beefed up.

Details, details...

[BernardTPM]

I have often wondered what the tractive effort of a black 5 type loco would be like with 1 or 2 extra driving wheel sets making them either a 4-8-0 or 4-10-0.

If the wheels were the same diameter then no different. Calculating tractive effort does not depend on the number of wheels, only their size, the boiler pressure and cylinder diameter and stroke.

Edited December 16, 2017 by BernardTPM

[brack]

... but increased boiler pressure inevitably meant increased weight, until lightweight alloys became available.

 

For example, on the Midland, Johnson's 1357 Class 0-6-0s of 1878 had boilers pressed to 140 psi and came in at 34 tons 5 cwt 2 qtr; the last batches of the visually almost identical Class M, built in 1901-2, had boilers at 160 psi and were over two tons heavier at 36 tons 6 cwt 1 qtr.

A fair point, a good job the rivers were 2-3 tons lighter than a black 5 to start with...

[Satan's Goldfish]

I have often wondered what the tractive effort of a black 5 type loco would be like with 1 or 2 extra driving wheel sets making them either a 4-8-0 or 4-10-0.

It might seem a strange idea but as this is for imaginary locos I thought I'd see what you all thought.

I think such a loco would be a good mixed traffic loco with 2 or 4 extra driving wheels as it could probably haul maybe 5 or 10 coaches or up to 20 or 25 wagons more than a 4-6-0.

In very simplistic terms isn't an 8f basically a black 5 on a 2-8-0 chassis? Bigger hauling capacity but lower speed.

 

Or are you imagining a longer/bigger boiler on the same sized wheels as a black 5 for the increased power?

[Regularity]

I have often wondered what the tractive effort of a black 5 type loco would be like with 1 or 2 extra driving wheel sets making them either a 4-8-0 or 4-10-0.

It might seem a strange idea but as this is for imaginary locos I thought I'd see what you all thought.

I think such a loco would be a good mixed traffic loco with 2 or 4 extra driving wheels as it could probably haul maybe 5 or 10 coaches or up to 20 or 25 wagons more than a 4-6-0.

If the wheels were the same diameter then no different. Calculating tractive effort does not depend on the number of wheels, only their size, the boiler pressure and cylinder diameter and stroke.

Yes, a point made in this thread all of 4 days ago. Edited December 16, 2017 by Regularity

[FPH 603]

Ok, I need help.

 

I'm in the process of designing a tram for the new tramway on my layout Kingsborough.

 

 

It will be based on the NSWGR's Aluminium Bodied Railcars, like the one pictured above but I might lower it to for realism. Also I will need to make it more 'British' as whilst I like the NSWGR Railcars, I still want to be realistic on resemblances, so that it isn't too obvious. I may also make the side skirting go even lower to help with this 'Tram Look' as well. The length will be reduced and the layout of the interior will be rearranged to cater for these changes. It might run on 600kv Overhead Wiring and the colour scheme is yet to be decided...

Edited December 18, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[PhilJ W]

Ok, I need help.

 

I'm in the process of designing a tram for the new tramway on my layout Kingsborough.

 

image.jpeg

 

It will be based on the NSWGR's Aluminium Bodied Railcars, like the one pictured above but I might lower it to for realism. Also I will need to make it more 'British' as whilst I like the NSWGR Railcars, I still want to be realistic on resemblances, so that it isn't too obvious. I may also make the side skirting go even lower to help with this 'Tram Look' as well. The length will be reduced and the layout of the interior will be rearranged to cater for these changes. It might run on 600kv Overhead Wiring and the colour scheme is yet to be decided...

Many years ago one of the model railway magazines featured a tram layout. The trams were kitbashed from the Airfix (now Dapol) railcar kit. As far as remember they were shortened slightly and were mounted on a pair of small wheeled bogies

[Regularity]

You haven’t said what era, but the nearest we got to an inter urban was the Grimsby and Immingham which may provide some alternative ideas - the trams/trains were bigger than on most tramways:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimsby_and_Immingham_Electric_Railway

[The Johnster]

May I put a word in for the Swansea and Oystermouth, the world's first public passenger railway which originally used horse traction before hauling the trams with steam locos.  It ended it's life with massive Brush double decker trams running in pairs, which I remember from childhood outings to Gower; they were very impressive, but I never got to ride on one, one of father's 'one day' promises.

 

He redeemed himself a little by taking from Newport to Brecon in the last few weeks of that service; I can still remember the pannier giving it the beans on the way back to Torpantau!

[FPH 603]

The era of the tramway represented will look different to the heavy rail line. Whilst the layout itself will be around the 1970's - 1980's period, I'd probably go back 20 years or so with the tramway. This would make it look older than the heavy rail.

 

EDIT: I will also enlarge the windows to make it look more traditional and the front end will definitely be rearranged, one thing would be that the end communication door would be removed. This would be as it wouldn't be needed for slow speed tram workings. I might also make the door arrangement look a little like the Bradfield Suburban cars, as they do slightly resemble a tram.

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[JCL]

I was looking for something else completely different (the colour of GNR vans), when through a chain of link clicking I ended up back here on RMWeb on a different thread about the GNR clerestory fish van. That led me to the OP's profile and then to his own website. There are some very atmospheric images on there, and the locos have had a lot of imagination applied to them.

 

https://www.artstation.com/woko

[FPH 603]

I've come up with a proposal for the trams. I've made a rough sketch of what it may look like, which I've darkened for clarity. I've still got to make proper diagrams though. The stupidly drawn circle thing in the middle of it is supposed to be the Late BR Crest.

Edited December 19, 2017 by DoubleDeckInterurban

[ColinK]

Like the tram, you could take it further and make it the first train/tram like Sheffield is trying to do.

[FPH 603]

Like the tram, you could take it further and make it the first train/tram like Sheffield is trying to do.

Good idea, but the problem would be electrification. Perhaps I could convert to diesel, which would mean I would also be making the first diesel powered tram. I would also have to heighten the doors, and perhaps I could take a few steps back to the original design. This would mean it may look more like the original design. I'm also thinking of slightly modernising the design as I don't think it will fit in well in the 1980's, and I don't want it to look too 'generic' either.

[Wolseley]

Good idea, but the problem would be electrification. Perhaps I could convert to diesel, which would mean I would also be making the first diesel powered tram. 

 

 

What about a CPH then?  There have been H0 models of them in the past, although I'm not sure if they're still available.

 

In case anyone is wondering what a CPH (a.k.a. "Tin Hare") is, here's a photo I took of one in the early 1970s (when it was still in revenue earning service) crossing at Riverstone with an ARHS tour headed by 1904 and 1919.  I can't remember the date, but it was probably 1973 or 74.