Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Photo

Imaginary Locomotives




  • Please log in to reply
2084 replies to this topic

#2076 DoubleDeckInterurban

DoubleDeckInterurban

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • LocationNSW, Down Under

Posted Today, 01:49

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-s...05003/05003.htm

Hope this helps.

That was basically what I was thinking but with no streamlining.



Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#2077 34theletterbetweenB&D

34theletterbetweenB&D

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,405 posts

Posted Today, 12:52

... 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,)


  • Informative/Useful x 1

#2078 Corbs

Corbs

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,336 posts

Posted Today, 13:49

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.



#2079 Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationNorth Dorset

Posted Today, 15:07

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.



#2080 Edge

Edge

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted Today, 15:14

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



#2081 Joseph_Pestell

Joseph_Pestell

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,687 posts
  • LocationNorth Dorset

Posted Today, 15:14

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?



#2082 Corbs

Corbs

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,336 posts

Posted Today, 15:35

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)

bulleid-q-2-10-0.jpg

 

I made the Q pacific at the same time.

bulleid-q-pacific-2.jpg


Edited by Corbs, Today, 15:36 .

  • Like x 2

#2083 JimC

JimC

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted Today, 15:47

An interesting what if in that context is "supposing Bulleid had got the job of simplifying and cheapening the Stanier 8F instead of Stanier"?

What would Bulleid versions of the 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 Austeriies have looked like?

The Q1 casing seems like a start...


Edited by JimC, Today, 15:49 .


#2084 runs as required

runs as required

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,299 posts
  • Location52A Tyneside's cultural quarter

Posted Today, 16:46

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 x 1

#2085 Satan's Goldfish

Satan's Goldfish

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • LocationDerweze, Turkmenistan ..... (Google it)

Posted Today, 18:47

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).








Recent blog entries on this topic

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.