Imaginary Locomotives

[runs as required]

....Its very nearly a B1

[The Johnster]

Yes, the GNR 4-6-0 from an Atlantic looks impossible and difficult to rebuild into something that works.  You need to have the rear driving axle behind the firebox but this requires the centre driving axle to be set back a bit to avoid overlong coupling rods, and it is right up against the front of the firebox as it is. 

 

The LMS mogul will work, but doesn't need splashers with those small driving wheels.  Or perhaps it does, and actually needs bigger driving wheels (and slightly bigger splashers).  Not sure about the polished dome, either, but it looks a useful little secondary route all rounder, a sort of precursor to the Ivatt Class 2 moguls.

 

The GNR 0-6-2T looks like a larger wheeled version of the N2, which was a very successful suburban design which lasted to the end of steam at King's Cross and was built by the LNER for use in Scotland.  I have the feeling that the higher pitch of the axles on your loco may have led to loading gauge and stability problems from the raising of an already high pitched boiler and it's fittings; cutting down the chimney might lead to poor steaming as well if the draughting is adversely affected.  The whole thing looks too high for me.

 

Can't see anything wrong with the class 49, a 40 with better placed cabs.  Ugly brute, though!

[Hroth]

I see the row behind is full, yet nobody wants to park anywhere near that Fiat Multipla.  I wonder why?

You notice that all the windows are open, yet no-one has stolen it.....

[BernardTPM]

A set of locomotives I just made as sprite drawings:

BR Class 49 Locomotive Design.png

If it were withdrawn by 1960 it wouldn't have got a TOPS class number, besides which at '49' it would have to have around a 2700hp engine which just didn't exist. Of course, it's actually quite close in format to the Class 40's immediate Southern Region predecessors.

[Suzie]

If it were withdrawn by 1960 it wouldn't have got a TOPS class number, besides which at '49' it would have to have around a 2700hp engine which just didn't exist. Of course, it's actually quite close in format to the Class 40's immediate Southern Region predecessors.

 

The 'Class 49' would be feasible as a double engine hydraulic of that sort of power at the time based on German technology, and it would have sat on eight axles without being too heavy - but I think it might have been a bit longer...

[runs as required]

.... Of course, it's actually quite close in format to the Class 40's immediate Southern Region predecessors.

Interesting point about that heritage in the Peaks' architecture.

 

Whatever one's affections for the Derby Sulzers (and territorially I'll admit to this) they were nevertheless lumbering ugly beasts - English Electric Type 4s, 3s, the Deltics and DP2 were far more satisfactory.

 

The Raworth/Bulleid would have had far more going for it aesthetically as a Box at the head of a train of Bulleid BR Mark 1 100mph stock.

I'm not convinced by the crash protection afforded by our import of the US diesel 'nose'

 

dh

 

dh

[LNWR18901910]

Yes, the GNR 4-6-0 from an Atlantic looks impossible and difficult to rebuild into something that works.  You need to have the rear driving axle behind the firebox but this requires the centre driving axle to be set back a bit to avoid overlong coupling rods, and it is right up against the front of the firebox as it is. 

 

The LMS mogul will work, but doesn't need splashers with those small driving wheels.  Or perhaps it does, and actually needs bigger driving wheels (and slightly bigger splashers).  Not sure about the polished dome, either, but it looks a useful little secondary route all rounder, a sort of precursor to the Ivatt Class 2 moguls.

 

The GNR 0-6-2T looks like a larger wheeled version of the N2, which was a very successful suburban design which lasted to the end of steam at King's Cross and was built by the LNER for use in Scotland.  I have the feeling that the higher pitch of the axles on your loco may have led to loading gauge and stability problems from the raising of an already high pitched boiler and it's fittings; cutting down the chimney might lead to poor steaming as well if the draughting is adversely affected.  The whole thing looks too high for me.

 

Can't see anything wrong with the class 49, a 40 with better placed cabs.  Ugly brute, though!

Thanks. The Ivatt 2MT was in the direction for me. I added the splashers because I had a little James the Red Engine hint going on in the process. I'm fine with the splashers as the way they are whcih gives the engine a flavour of class. Also, I was inspired by the Midland Railway Yankee Moguls and the LMS Hughes Crab Moguls when designing this engine.

[Northmoor]

Whatever one's affections for the Derby Sulzers (and territorially I'll admit to this) they were nevertheless lumbering ugly beasts - English Electric Type 4s, 3s, the Deltics and DP2 were far more satisfactory.

While EE built most of the best stuff for BR, the Peaks were a great improvement on the EE Type 4s, which were arguably obsolete almost as soon as they were introduced.  

 

Underpowered for their weight, on both the WCML and GEML, they could not improve on the timings of the steam locos they replaced.  Meanwhile the Peaks on the Midland ML, with about 500hp more but the same weight as an EE Type 4, could improve on steam timings.

[runs as required]

I know all about that and agree with you - I am talking about that extra % for design that the latter day BR .Design Panel so excited me with as a young man.

A brand new EE Type 4 catching the early morning sun arriving at Mossley Hill with the Merseyide Express for Euston in 1960 was somehow more aesthetically exciting than a Peak growling into Chinley heading for Peak Forest and St Pancras

...or, in my mid career, much later on, propelling an earlier failed train into York on a late evening Liverpool - Newcastle service.

 

dh

[BackRoomBoffin]

Hi all, I have been drooling over this thread for some time, and finally plucked up courage to post!

 

I'm really interested in the context of imaginary designs...

 

I'd like to propose that:
a) The Grouping happened differently, because the Liberal party didn't split in two immediately after WW1, so railway rationalisation happened in the context of a government that was more left-wing, pro-state, and actively setting up 'home rule' governments in Wales and Scotland (as the Liberals had considered doing pre-war if they managed to keep Ireland in the UK through devolution ... we won't talk about that).

​b) Therefore, Scotland and Wales got their 'own' Groups, but with more government intervention - as devolved-government-managed Joint Boards (or the SRJB and WRJB for short).

​c) The Welsh one was basically the Barry, Taff Vale and Cambrian slammed together, but the Scottish was more interesting, with all 5 main Scottish companies merged under one management (as envisaged in the actual grouping)

​d) Due to inter-company rivalry and the urgent need for new construction fast, actual design work on a range of 'Scottish Stanards' was not done by any actual engineer from a Scottish railway, and English consultants were hired in instead. These were Robinson (ex of the GCR) and Holcroft from the SECR (who was always ready for a jaunt).

​e) There was a heavy leaning on proven designs, particularly ones that were 'public domain' due to the recent war effort.

​Therefore the standard locomotives were...
- The 'ROD' 2-8-0 (loads going cheap)
​-  The Woolwich 2-cylinder Moguls (ditto) as a standard goods type, with a 2-6-4T passenger tank variant as also seen on the Metropolitan
​- The existing 'River Class' HR/CR 2-cylinder 4-6-0s as a standard mixed-traffic type, with uprated boiler (very Robinson-esque design)
​- The NBR Atlantics (already partially based on a Robinson design) for general passenger usage, with further rebuilding to a 3-cylinder type (Robinson had experimented with a 3-cylinder 4-4-2 when on the GCR and Holcroft liked 3 cylinders, probably no conjugated valve gear, though).
​- a 4-cylinder 4-6-0 for the main lines (basically they nicked the drawings for the Lord Nelsons)
- a new light 4-4-0, 0-6-2T and 0-6-0 shared with the Welsh railways

​This all goes well enough (I would argue), but the neighbouring LMS and LNER start to show them up with stronger, fast types on the ECML and WCML. By the later 30s, Bulleid from the LNER is hired as a further consultant. Any suggestions as to what he builds if that is the fleet, and what problems the SJRB would be meeting by then that would need a genius to solve?
 

[scots region]

Hi all, I have been drooling over this thread for some time, and finally plucked up courage to post!

 

I'm really interested in the context of imaginary designs...

 

I'd like to propose that:

a) The Grouping happened differently, because the Liberal party didn't split in two immediately after WW1, so railway rationalisation happened in the context of a government that was more left-wing, pro-state, and actively setting up 'home rule' governments in Wales and Scotland (as the Liberals had considered doing pre-war if they managed to keep Ireland in the UK through devolution ... we won't talk about that).

​b) Therefore, Scotland and Wales got their 'own' Groups, but with more government intervention - as devolved-government-managed Joint Boards (or the SRJB and WRJB for short).

​c) The Welsh one was basically the Barry, Taff Vale and Cambrian slammed together, but the Scottish was more interesting, with all 5 main Scottish companies merged under one management (as envisaged in the actual grouping)

​d) Due to inter-company rivalry and the urgent need for new construction fast, actual design work on a range of 'Scottish Stanards' was not done by any actual engineer from a Scottish railway, and English consultants were hired in instead. These were Robinson (ex of the GCR) and Holcroft from the SECR (who was always ready for a jaunt).

​e) There was a heavy leaning on proven designs, particularly ones that were 'public domain' due to the recent war effort.

​Therefore the standard locomotives were...

- The 'ROD' 2-8-0 (loads going cheap)

​-  The Woolwich 2-cylinder Moguls (ditto) as a standard goods type, with a 2-6-4T passenger tank variant as also seen on the Metropolitan

​- The existing 'River Class' HR/CR 2-cylinder 4-6-0s as a standard mixed-traffic type, with uprated boiler (very Robinson-esque design)

​- The NBR Atlantics (already partially based on a Robinson design) for general passenger usage, with further rebuilding to a 3-cylinder type (Robinson had experimented with a 3-cylinder 4-4-2 when on the GCR and Holcroft liked 3 cylinders, probably no conjugated valve gear, though).

​- a 4-cylinder 4-6-0 for the main lines (basically they nicked the drawings for the Lord Nelsons)

- a new light 4-4-0, 0-6-2T and 0-6-0 shared with the Welsh railways

 

​This all goes well enough (I would argue), but the neighbouring LMS and LNER start to show them up with stronger, fast types on the ECML and WCML. By the later 30s, Bulleid from the LNER is hired as a further consultant. Any suggestions as to what he builds if that is the fleet, and what problems the SJRB would be meeting by then that would need a genius to solve?

 

Very interesting I’d like to see more

[melmerby]

As regards c): What about the other Welsh railways?

There were another 4 or more main ones, not including the GWR and loads of little ones. What would they be doing?

 

Keith

[melmerby]

Not imaginary but I always liked this fusion of a GWR & American loco:

 

https://orig00.deviantart.net/423c/f/2017/041/5/b/port_talbot_railway_cooke_0_8_2t_by_vincentberkan-dayjoao.jpg

 

Keith

[Mr_Tilt]

The 1Co-Co1 diesel must be packing some seriously heavy kit in a small space to justify 8 wheel bogies!

 

JF

 

Peaks and Class 40s did the same though. 

[Coryton]

If it were withdrawn by 1960 it wouldn't have got a TOPS class number, besides which at '49' it would have to have around a 2700hp engine which just didn't exist. Of course, it's actually quite close in format to the Class 40's immediate Southern Region predecessors.

 

I think what we refer to as TOPS classes were invented quite a while before TOPS numbering, although perhaps enthusiasts weren't aware of them.

 

After all, there are various classes (e.g. 04, 10, 11, 12) which never actually saw a TOPS number.

[Regularity]

Adopted in 1968, not displayed for a few years, 73-74 (I think it varied somewhat, and was never applied to the WR hydraulics).

[melmerby]

Peaks and Class 40s did the same though. 

What?

Underpowered and overweight you mean?

 

Keith

[Mr_Tilt]

What?

Underpowered and overweight you mean?

 

Keith

 

<Sigh>

 

No, had 8 wheeled bogies for a single engine etc. 

[Regularity]

What?

Underpowered and overweight you mean?

According to the missus, I resemble that remark...

[BernardTPM]

I think what we refer to as TOPS classes were invented quite a while before TOPS numbering, although perhaps enthusiasts weren't aware of them.

 

After all, there are various classes (e.g. 04, 10, 11, 12) which never actually saw a TOPS number.

BR didn't buy TOPS until 1968, which would have been long after the supposed 1960 withdrawal date. It was several more years before the numbers were actually applied to locomotives, though there was a big push to do so in 1973-4. By that time several of the classes that still existed in 1968 had gone (like the Classes you mention). Now there might have been some prior thought as to a potential and logical renumbering to suit computerised control systems*, but more than eight years before? It seems unlikely. Even then, why include things that you know are going to be long gone?

 

* possible evidence to support this - leaving space for a Class 41. The old NBL A1A-A1A hydraulics would have fitted perfectly into this spot, between the old EE type 4 (same hp as those, but greater TE) and the B-B Warships. It was used in 1973 for the Prototype HST power cars, though logically they should have been just after the B-B Warships (2250hp against 2200hp) but Class 44 was already taken.

[BernardTPM]

North British Railway musings on  the theme of the 'H' Atlantic. Perhaps the extension to a Pacific is pretty obvious. Unlike the Atlantic, this one has a wider firebox. Inevitiably there's some resemblance to Raven's NER design, though perhaps not as much as I expected:

 

 

More logical perhaps would be to have a six-coupled version fo the Atlantic instead:

 

[LNWR18901910]

North British Railway musings on  the theme of the 'H' Atlantic. Perhaps the extension to a Pacific is pretty obvious. Unlike the Atlantic, this one has a wider firebox. Inevitiably there's some resemblance to Raven's NER design, though perhaps not as much as I expected:

 

NBRpacific.jpg

 

More logical perhaps would be to have a six-coupled version fo the Atlantic instead:

 

NBR_4-6-0.jpg

I too am in favour of the NBR Pacific. It would be a great model to attempt.

Edited March 14, 2018 by LNWR18901910

[melmerby]

North British Railway musings on  the theme of the 'H' Atlantic. Perhaps the extension to a Pacific is pretty obvious. Unlike the Atlantic, this one has a wider firebox. Inevitiably there's some resemblance to Raven's NER design, though perhaps not as much as I expected:

 

NBRpacific.jpg

 

More logical perhaps would be to have a six-coupled version fo the Atlantic instead:

 

NBR_4-6-0.jpg

On that basis

This could be extended similarly:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2018/post-25673-0-68922000-1515329374.jpg

 

Keith

[LNWR18901910]

On that basis

This could be extended similarly:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2018/post-25673-0-68922000-1515329374.jpg

 

Keith

You mean from an Atlantic to a Ten-Wheeler or a Pacfiic?

[BernardTPM]

The Ten-Wheeler is pretty easy with the NBR H because of the narrow grate, even if that negates much of the advantage of the Atlantic wheel format in the first place. Should be pretty simple to make from the old GEM kit in 4mm scale.