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.

Red's Inconceivable Concept Dump


Recommended Posts

Taking a leaf from the book of my frequent assistant / inexplicable fanboy DoubleDeckInterurban, I've decided to place a lot of my more outlandish or in the least case wildly bizarre locomotive and stock concepts onto this thread here to clear the air in my head a bit. And believe me there's a lot of them. Most of them will be in the form of probably quite bad Photoshop mockups, similar to those some of you may have seen in my Workbench thread.
You are free to attempt to build any of these, so long as you let me know and let others know the initial idea came from this page. The only payment needed is to give credit.
Let's start then with one some of you may be familiar with if you read my Workbench thread. I put this up here again now because... actually, it's quite a good idea, in my mind anyway, and I want to share it with those that might be willing to try and build this little thing. So, men and women of the jury, I present Exhibit A: The Brakevan Tram.

post-33750-0-06364400-1520093497.png

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

Another concept for you guys, this time for an inside cylinder Pacific. 

post-33750-0-97864000-1520352766_thumb.png

This is one of those ideas where I know WHY, conceptually, it's never really happened, but it would be quite interesting to see someone build one just for the uniqueness factor.

(Not necessarily a West Country Rebuild, mind. That was just the locomotive I could use to best depict the concept. Have I mentioned that I much prefer the "Spam-can" ones? Also that I hate the look of smoke deflectors as much the time it ruins the profile of the locomotive?)

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another concept for you guys, this time for an inside cylinder Pacific. 

attachicon.gifInside-cylinder Pacific concept.png

This is one of those ideas where I know WHY, conceptually, it's never really happened, but it would be quite interesting to see someone build one just for the uniqueness factor.

(Not necessarily a West Country Rebuild, mind. That was just the locomotive I could use to best depict the concept. Have I mentioned that I much prefer the "Spam-can" ones? Also that I hate the look of smoke deflectors as much the time it ruins the profile of the locomotive?)

On a second thought, with those notes on my own preferences taken into account if I did it it'd look more like this maybe...?

post-33750-0-67443100-1520366761_thumb.png

Not that a railway as small as my own Kelsby Light Railway would need a Pacific, of course, but still.

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another concept for you guys, this time for an inside cylinder Pacific...

 It's not all a bad idea, no worse than a four cylinder pacific which has just as many inside cylinders, and puts all the thrust forces closer to the centreline with a frame construction potentially stronger for the same weight of metal used in construction of a two outside cylinder pacific. Nothing prevents retaining the outside valvegear for easier maintenance, (and there have been locos constructed on this pattern) with the valvechests wherever is best for most direct steam passages and large porting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another concept for you guys, this time for an inside cylinder Pacific.

Inside-cylinder Pacific concept.png

This is one of those ideas where I know WHY, conceptually, it's never really happened, but it would be quite interesting to see someone build one just for the uniqueness factor.

(Not necessarily a West Country Rebuild, mind. That was just the locomotive I could use to best depict the concept. Have I mentioned that I much prefer the "Spam-can" ones? Also that I hate the look of smoke deflectors as much the time it ruins the profile of the locomotive?)

The ‘large loco, no outside cylinders’ look reminds me of the PRR S2, although that had no cylinders at all, being a steam turbine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_S2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 It's not all a bad idea, no worse than a four cylinder pacific which has just as many inside cylinders, and puts all the thrust forces closer to the centreline with a frame construction potentially stronger for the same weight of metal used in construction of a two outside cylinder pacific. Nothing prevents retaining the outside valvegear for easier maintenance, (and there have been locos constructed on this pattern) with the valvechests wherever is best for most direct steam passages and large porting.

The Belgians made class 12 Atlantic thus,so why not a Pacific.

Very fast and powerfull

 

https://www.altaplana.be/en/dictionary/12.004

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Belgians made class 12 Atlantic thus,so why not a Pacific.

Very fast and powerfull

 

https://www.altaplana.be/en/dictionary/12.004

Yes. We also made stuff like the GER S69 (alternatively known as the LNER B12 of course) as inside cylinder. But no inside cylinder Pacifics. The reason being that it's incredibly awkward to get between the frames of a locomotive that large, so outside cylinders are more common on larger locomotives, especially high-speed passenger locomotives, as they're easier to maintain. Also the reason it's more common in stuff like shunting tanks - they aren't moving as fast or over anywhere close to the distance, so they don't require maintenance so often.

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The limiting factor of an inside cylindered pacific is the bore diameter of the cylinders, limited by the frames unless they bulge out a bit, otherwise there is no reason why it wouldn't work.  But the smaller cylinders sort of negate the point of a pacific anyway, which is to carry a big boiler on a chassis that deploys traction well and rides well.

 

The LNER inherited some 4-6-2 tanks from the GCR and NBR, an IIRC these were inside cylindered.  Purely from an aesthetic point of view, probably because I would associate an inside cylindered pacific with a pre-grouping design, a lower less modern looking tender would look better.

 

Or why not have the driving wheels powered individually by Doble type steam engines; you could then have outside frames if you wanted.  Speaking of outside frames, of course these would allow larger bore conventional inside cylinders and make a more practicable loco in terms of T.E. possible.

Edited by The Johnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

The limiting factor of an inside cylindered pacific is the bore diameter of the cylinders, limited by the frames unless they bulge out a bit, otherwise there is no reason why it wouldn't work.  But the smaller cylinders sort of negate the point of a pacific anyway, which is to carry a big boiler on a chassis that deploys traction well and rides well.

 

The LNER inherited some 4-6-2 tanks from the GCR and NBR, an IIRC these were inside cylindered.  Purely from an aesthetic point of view, probably because I would associate an inside cylindered pacific with a pre-grouping design, a lower less modern looking tender would look better.

 

Or why not have the driving wheels powered individually by Doble type steam engines; you could then have outside frames if you wanted.  Speaking of outside frames, of course these would allow larger bore conventional inside cylinders and make a more practicable loco in terms of T.E. possible.

Hmm. I always thought it was because of maintenance rather than the cylinder bore. Learn something new every day.

And I totally forgot about the GCR tanks. 

Also the images were just proof of concept, though I do see your point with the design more befitting a pre-Grouping loco. These concepts are the ones I have no reason to make, so I put them up here in case other freelancers want to give them a crack (so long as they remember to give appropriate credit.)

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Ease of access for maintenance seems not to have been a major consideration by any railway's loco designers until after WW2 when costs and staff shortages made it an issue; it certainly did not stop the LMS building large numbers of Midland 2P and 4F, and even extending the 4F concept to the Austin 7s.  The GW was even worse, designing enlarged Stars (Castles, and then developing them into Kings), which were appalling locomotives to deal with between the frames, and Castles were still being built in 1950!  The big 4 all went for large express passenger locos with 3 or 4 cylinder drive so as to be able to accommodate the cylinders and to provide a smoother drive and better power transmission; all of them except the GW used 3 cylinder drive on some locos, very successfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Just a passing thought, and perhaps I should have let it pass without stopping, but a loco with a Doble type steam engine just to get it moving could do it's main work on a single cylinder with a big counterbalance at the crank.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The limiting factor of an inside cylindered pacific is the bore diameter of the cylinders, limited by the frames unless they bulge out a bit, otherwise there is no reason why it wouldn't work.  But the smaller cylinders sort of negate the point of a pacific anyway, which is to carry a big boiler on a chassis that deploys traction well and rides well.

 

The LNER inherited some 4-6-2 tanks from the GCR and NBR, an IIRC these were inside cylindered.  Purely from an aesthetic point of view, probably because I would associate an inside cylindered pacific with a pre-grouping design, a lower less modern looking tender would look better.

 

Or why not have the driving wheels powered individually by Doble type steam engines; you could then have outside frames if you wanted.  Speaking of outside frames, of course these would allow larger bore conventional inside cylinders and make a more practicable loco in terms of T.E. possible.

The Prince of Wales 4-4-0 from LNWR had 20.5 inch inside cylinders ,that is half an inch more than Britania 4-6-2.

A Britania with outside frames/inside cylinders and 7feet 6 between leading driving axle and trailing bogie axle instead of the Britania 5 feet 6 as is.

Lovely and  easy to maintain.

Compounded  like the austrian 4-6-0 it would also have been the most powerfull british pacific

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KkStB_9

Edited by Niels
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a passing thought, and perhaps I should have let it pass without stopping, but a loco with a Doble type steam engine just to get it moving could do it's main work on a single cylinder with a big counterbalance at the crank.  

Ok, THAT sounds like a fun idea.

 

The Prince of Wales 4-4-0 from LNWR had 20.5 inch inside cylinders ,that is half an inch more than Britania 4-6-2.

A Britania with outside frames/inside cylinders and 7feet 6 between leading driving axle and trailing bogie axle instead of the Britania 5 feet 6 as is.

Lovely and  easy to maintain.

Compounded  like the austrian 4-6-0 it would also have been the most powerfull british pacific

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KkStB_9

Hmm. Food for thought that...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So... let's have some random weirdness with A3s.

 

post-33750-0-25021800-1520676144_thumb.png

Let's start with this. Basically a Gresley C9 with a lowered rear running plate. 

 

post-33750-0-13026500-1520676114_thumb.png

Then this. Think a standard locomotive version of Hush Hush.

 

post-33750-0-77111200-1520676353_thumb.png

And finally... This. This. Whyte notation can take a hike. Hilariously impractical, and in my mind impractically hilarious. Feel free to question my sanity, and I do not at all expect anyone to actually try this; I just did it because it popped into my head and I thought it was funny.

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can this:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_09_2017/post-898-0-40142800-1505684845.jpg

 

be made into an inside cylindered outside framed illegetime child of straying GWR City Of Truro?

Hmm. Maybe. Not exactly in the way of doing mockup requests though, sorry. This thread was more to throw my own ideas up onto the internet for people more talented than I to try if they so wish (or laugh at) and to clear the air in my head a bit.

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another slightly insane concept for you today, inspired by me putting my incomplete No.3 onto an Airfix Large Prairie chassis on a whim:

post-33750-0-98837100-1521880412_thumb.png

It's another product of pure silliness really, but here it is so you can have a go at this absurd saddle-tank if you wish.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another slightly insane concept for you today, inspired by me putting my incomplete No.3 onto an Airfix Large Prairie chassis on a whim:

attachicon.gif2-6-2ST.png

It's another product of pure silliness really, but here it is so you can have a go at this absurd saddle-tank if you wish.

Looks interesting but I think the boiler is a bit small for a loco that large. But yet again practicality isn't of much concern and it's YOUR railway after all! I think that'll be an interesting project.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks interesting but I think the boiler is a bit small for a loco that large. But yet again practicality isn't of much concern and it's YOUR railway after all! I think that'll be an interesting project.

Oh, I'm not going to try it. That's not the point of this thread. This thread is basically just to share my more absurdist ideas that I'm in no mood to really try in case someone else wants to have a go at them instead. 

That being said, I do see your point. But this is just an unused concept. As you said, practicality is of little concern. For whoever may pick it up it will be an interesting build, certainly. It's very rare, nigh-unheard-of even, to see a saddle tank of this size.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dare I say it, but I feel that is better-looking than your current plan for No.3! I really like it and it has the makings of a good-looking (if incredibly bizarre!) loco.

 

You have the parts, so just try it! It fits nicely with your slightly Emett-esque scheme, and would complement Wild Rover nicely.

post-33498-0-11449500-1522186697.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Personally I think I'll stick to my little Avonside saddle tank (Kelsby's coaches won't move themselves!) but thoughts for the future.

Also the Airfix chassis doesn't have a motor or anything else. It's just the empty chassis with wheels. You're welcome to try it yourself though!

Edited by RedGemAlchemist
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...