Redgate's Modelling

Brave man. It looks a powerful beast. I could see it as a banking engine. A replacement for Big Bertha?

Very Germanic looking.... an interesting project though

 

Not sure about the smoke deflectors, no real need on a tank engine* plus they just don't seem to look right visually.

 

 

 

* Yes I know they weren't really needed on the 9F either but the loco certainly looks more 'beefy' / powerful with them.

55 minutes ago, Ramrig said:

 I could see it as a banking engine. A replacement for Big Bertha?

Beat me to it, my first thought when I saw it.

1 hour ago, Ramrig said:

Brave man. It looks a powerful beast. I could see it as a banking engine. A replacement for Big Bertha?

 

An 0-10-0 carries its entire weight on driven axles.  You would get inferior adhesion from a 2-10-4.

It doesn't need to carry vast amounts of water and coal as it's not going to wander very far from shed for long and could refill between turns.

How about making it an 0-10-0PT with a copper rim to the chimney?

 

I think someone is taking a frankly silly frictional loco too seriously

15 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

An 0-10-0 carries its entire weight on driven axles.  You would get inferior adhesion from a 2-10-4.

It doesn't need to carry vast amounts of water and coal as it's not going to wander very far from shed for long and could refill between turns.

How about making it an 0-10-0PT with a copper rim to the chimney?

 

 

Thing is there were quite a few large German tank engines with at least 8 coupled wheels (not sure if any 10 coupled ones were built) and being tank engines with limited fuel capacity wasn’t obviously seen as an issue for them.

German BR84 and BR85 were 2-10-2 tank engines, so maybe I should drop the extra pony wheel and shorten the coal space back to standard 4 size ......

 

(This is not what I'm going to do)

Just bought a Railroad 9f sans tender, which changes things from a fidelity point of view, possibly .....

22 hours ago, Ramrig said:

I could see it as a banking engine. A replacement for Big Bertha?

As a replacement for Bertha a tank loco converted from a 9F could have been attractive if there had been a longer future for steam as it would have used the same boiler, wheels and motion thus simplifying maintenance. 

21 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

It doesn't need to carry vast amounts of water and coal as it's not going to wander very far from shed for long and could refill between turns.

Bromsgrove South Loco siding to Blackwell and back was only about 5 miles, 40% of which was rolling down a steep hill.

Bertha only had a coal capacity of about 4 tons and used about 7cwt per round trip. Tank locos used were Jinty 2.6 tons and 94xx 3.6 tons. The 80000 bunker holds about 3.5 tons I believe.

Bertha had approximately the same 2000 gallon water capacity as a Standard 4MT Tank.

They managed quite happily for coal and water when the 52xx which held 4 tons and 1800 gallons was tried there, the only problem being it was neither one thing nor the other. In banking power terms the Jinty or 94xx counted as 1, Bertha or the 9F as 2 but the 52xx was only 1.5.

 

The only consideration for wider use would probably be the axle loading with Bertha only being about 15 tons, although a 9F tender is about 17 - 18.5 tons loaded. A 2-10-2T with the same coal and water capacity as a 2-6-4T would be maybe around 100 tons in working order but the adhesion weight woud be better that a 2-10-0 with the weight of the tanks over the driving wheels

You know, I'm considering numbering this beast 88100, might even stick a big lamp on the front

On 14/01/2021 at 09:42, RedgateModels said:

German BR84 and BR85 were 2-10-2 tank engines, so maybe I should drop the extra pony wheel and shorten the coal space back to standard 4 size ......

 

(This is not what I'm going to do)

Or the Polish OKz32 - 2-10-2T built for a switchback line into the mountains (three reversals en-route making a tank loco much more practical as it didn't need turning).