Imaginary Locomotives

[Mr_Tilt]

I don't know about N couplers - is it the same as proper Kadees and the various types of junk that look a bit like Kadees?

 

I assume that when Micro-Scale's (Kadee's N scale spin-off) patent ran out everyone jumped on the bandwagon, but it made sense for the new stuff to work with the established 'standard'. They work together, of a fashion, but I find that Micros work best with other Micros much of the time.

[Compound2632]

and if water gets in the cylinders...

 

Unlike steam, water is incompressible. So if water gets trapped in the cylinders, the only way it can get out as the piston moves to reduce the volume is by removing the cylinder cover... 

 

When the regulator is shut off at the end of a run, there may be some condensation of the remaining steam in the cylinders. That's why it's important to remember to open the cylinder drain-cocks before opening the regulator on starting again - the first admission of steam under pressure will drive the water out.

[Gibbo675]

Ah yes the 140mph while standing still incident. But why does that happen rather than the metalwork giving out like it did on the car engine?

Hi Corbs,

 

Carry over, often know as priming happens more often than is realised at all sorts of cut offs, speeds and working conditions.

1. Light volume carryover is very often evaporated within the super-heater elements when it happens at speed and may be detected by the exhaust note changing and also a dip in the reading of the steam chest pressure gauge where fitted.
2. Medium volume carry over is usually partly evaporated with the rest being accommodated within the bump clearance in the ends of the cylinders, should this happen the locomotive will display both of the above to a greater extent and may well also cause both rough riding and violent vibration to be felt through the frames.
3. Heavy carry over will cause the cylinder relief valves to lift and water will be expelled them again the symptoms of point 2 will be observed but to an even greater extent.

Should the locomotive suffer a prolonged period of carry over without the actions of the driver curtailing it then the the volume of water may increase causing three things to happen;

1. Hydraulic locking of the regulator.
2. Complete runaway slipping of the engine.
3. Damage to cylinders, motion components and also wheel seat keys and crank pins.

In the case of point 1 then the carry over may only be stopped by opening the drain cocks and winding the reversing gear to its mid point. This will prevent both the engines producing power and cause the balancing the regulator allowing it to be closed. Should shutting of the regulator not be achieved then point 2 may occur which in severe cases may lead to point 3.

 

In the case of 60532 two things further contributed to the causation of point 2 other than the general poor handling of the locomotive, the first was that the driver did not have the reversing gear locked off and the fireman's side regulator handle had been removed by the locomotives owners.

 

First, because the reversing gear was not locked off two things happened to exacerbate the situation in that once the locomotive began to slip it caused the valve gear to drawn into full gear, this caused the handle in the cab to turn violently both injuring and incapacitating the driver and also causing the engines to draw more water laden steam to be carried over, A further note is that when in full gear the port opens both fully open and also for a greater time period allowing more water into the cylinders. As the driver was now injured he could not wind the valve gear into its mid point and struggled in his attempt to shut the regulator

Second, as the fireman's side regulator handle had been removed the fireman was unable to assist the injured driver in closing the regulator. This allowed the catastrophic runaway of the engines which in turn cased the damage.

There was also rumour that while all of this was happening the crew became confused as to which side of the cab the drain cock lever was situated while dealing with the slip and the injured driver.

 

Gibbo.

[brack]

All in all as the only six cylinder garratt ever built it was a poor effort.

I'm afraid there were a few other 6 cylinder garratts, but the LNER design wasn't particularly great. If gresley hadn't insisted on standardising motion parts with his 2-8-0 it'd likely have been better. Quite why the LNER/LMS didn't just let beyer peacock get on with the job I don't know, given a free hand BP were very good at what they did.

The answer I suppose is that a garratt isn't great shuttling up and down a couple of miles of hill, although the U1 did manage to survive 30 years as a one off (until they electrified the line and it's boiler eventually gave out) so it can't have been that unsuccessful - any non standard design that lasts 3 decades can't have been that terrible, especially given that BR were trying to find something for it to do when it was old and it's boiler on the way out (but they couldn't get the oil firing conversion to work).

I suspect a lot of its trouble was probably being different/unpopular with its crews, who as you pointed out knew they were in for a hard shift, and the conditions through the tunnel weren't pleasant whatever you were driving, but that's what you were getting all day long if rostered on the U1. If I were there I'd be crossing my fingers that I'd be on something else every week.

[Corbs]

Thank you Gibbo, that explains it completely and especially this bit...

 

 

Should the locomotive suffer a prolonged period of carry over without the actions of the driver curtailing it then the the volume of water may increase causing three things to happen;

1. Hydraulic locking of the regulator.

 

... Now I understand what was meant by an ex-BR fireman in an audiobook I was listening to. While in a Super D on banking duties, the driver was very angry and handled the loco roughly. As the fireman put it, the loco 'went hydraulic' and what he described sounded like a runaway. Now I understand what he was talking about, thank you again!

[Corbs]

Since my railway went and bought a load of ROD 2-8-0 locos after WW1, I've been giving some thought to how they might have been changed over their lifetime.

 

Taking some inspiration from Gresley and Thompson's adventures with the O4s, I thought that the first thing would be to fit a nicer cab with side windows (the Stanier type cab will be the standard for my locos). The trio of RODs will definitely get these, so a bit like the NWR's version of 5015 here:

 

Then I thought, what if I took things a step further? Thompson rebuilt several O4s as O4/8 locos, keeping the original bottom end but with a B1-type boiler for standardisation, and a new cab.

 

'My' NWR operates two Stanier 5MT and two Stanier 8F locos, so perhaps rebuilding the RODs with 8F boilers could be an option?

 

Here's a rough mock-up. I removed the outside steam pipes in order to keep the original pipework from the cylinders. The boiler would appear high due to the low running plate of the ROD, also making sure to leave clearance for the inside valve gear.

 

 

A bit of a dogs dinner but then lots of these rebuilds were somewhat ungainly.

[scots region]

Since my railway went and bought a load of ROD 2-8-0 locos after WW1

 

You mean since you bought a collection of shabby old wrecks at (what I suspect are) trumped up prices from Dodgy Dave of Liverpool, who by the way has since skipped town, against the advice of the board and after you been at my wine cellar. 

 

All in good humour.

[Corbs]

Quite right! Corroded fireboxes on several of them so we pulled them to pieces and sent the only good bits off to Gorton!

[scots region]

Quite right! Corroded fireboxes on several of them so we pulled them to pieces and sent the only good bits off to Gorton!

 

Good thing you left something in the cellar, and that the foreman couldn't tell a Blanc from a hole in the ground. 

[melmerby]

 

 

'My' NWR operates two Stanier 5MT and two Stanier 8F locos, so perhaps rebuilding the RODs with 8F boilers could be an option?

 

Here's a rough mock-up. I removed the outside steam pipes in order to keep the original pipework from the cylinders. The boiler would appear high due to the low running plate of the ROD, also making sure to leave clearance for the inside valve gear.

 

NWR-7F-2.jpg

 

A bit of a dogs dinner but then lots of these rebuilds were somewhat ungainly.

Actually considering it's a marriage of two differeng ideologies, IMHO it does work and looks OK.

 

The Western, of course, put copper fireboxes on the best of it's RODs

I believe the idea of a Swindon boiler was mooted but didn't get far. During Collett's tenure that could have led to something similar to your "Stanierisation"

 

Keith

[BernardTPM]

Since my railway went and bought a load of ROD 2-8-0 locos after WW1, I've been giving some thought to how they might have been changed over their lifetime.

 

Taking some inspiration from Gresley and Thompson's adventures with the O4s, I thought that the first thing would be to fit a nicer cab with side windows (the Stanier type cab will be the standard for my locos).

How about a Hughes 'Crab' style cab for an earlier rebuild?

[The Johnster]

A Swindon no.1 boiler on an ROD 04 would have been very much in line with the work done to much of the South Wales constituent/absorbed locos that were 'Swindonised' (some were actually 'Caerphillyised', but Swindon drew them out) by Collett.  I would envisage a 2884 type cab and retention of the Robinson splashers.  A Caerphilly outshopping has a red painted reversing rod.  

 

Perhaps this was an ongoing project halted by WW2 austerity, and both original and Swindon boilered locos might have run together well into BR days.  RODs were a feature of Pontypool Road for many years, and it is interesting to speculate what the crews would have thought of them.  With everything still Robinsonian but the boiler, they'd have been just as rough and ready, and possibly would have needed a different techinque to fire successfully.  

[Corbs]

A Swindon no.1 boiler on an ROD 04 would have been very much in line with the work done to much of the South Wales constituent/absorbed locos that were 'Swindonised' (some were actually 'Caerphillyised', but Swindon drew them out) by Collett.  I would envisage a 2884 type cab and retention of the Robinson splashers.  A Caerphilly outshopping has a red painted reversing rod.  

 

Perhaps this was an ongoing project halted by WW2 austerity, and both original and Swindon boilered locos might have run together well into BR days.  RODs were a feature of Pontypool Road for many years, and it is interesting to speculate what the crews would have thought of them.  With everything still Robinsonian but the boiler, they'd have been just as rough and ready, and possibly would have needed a different techinque to fire successfully.  

I was thinking about this when photoshopping the other pic, I'm sure I've seen a might-have-been somewhere of a GWR 3000 Class but with a Std GWR boiler, not sure if it was a photoshop or a model.

[Corbs]

AHA! Of course it was Mr. V Cornish from Model Railway Constructor many years ago (image via Steve Purves)

[AlfaZagato]

So, a 2800 with a campaign sash?

[The Johnster]

Yes, that sort of thing.  Mr Cornish's drawing, interestingly, shows a loco with a higher pitched boiler than a 28xx/2884 (or at least that is my impression of it).  I do not know what clearance is available between the firebox and the rear wheelset, but the 28xx suggests that the boiler could have been dropped a few inches, improving the loco's centre of gravity and possibly the ride, making the loco kinder to the track.  This would have meant a new, 2884 type, cab as well.  When you've gone this far, 28xx cylinders are not much of an extra mile to go, and you may as well put GW valve gear and motion on her as well; by this time the only visual difference between 04 and 2884 is the wheels and clanky conrods, the tenders already having appeared behind various other GW classes.

 

If I were modelling her, I'd want to do it as Mr Cornish envisaged, though.  I have little difficulty imagining her on a class H banging away up Llanvihangel with a G2a doing it's best to drown out the noise in the rear, both trying to blow holes in the sky.  I think the firemen may have preferred her to a 28xx/2884 for her roomier cab which gave them more room to work, but locomen's preferences are difficult to predict; they are a capricious bunch of wallflowers!

[melmerby]

In the RCTS volume containing info on the RODs it says the proposal to reboiler the RODs was made in 1938 using a Std 1 boiler but nothing came of it.

I haven't been able to find a drawing of it (in any of my books), maybe it didn't get that far.

 

Keith

[Corbs]

So, a 2800 with a campaign sash?

You'll have to speak to scots region about the Champagne Stash, I couldn't possibly comment....

[Corbs]

Finding a use for some second hand J15s purchased from the LNER....

[Northmoor]

Have you done anything with the Mainline J72?

 

They go for beans on eBay, although that's probably because most of them don't work.  However, the body detail was really good for a 1970s model, they are a type built over a huge period (isn't it 52 years?) and they, or at least something looking very like J72s, were sold by the NER into industry.  Milford Docks and Harbour Company certainly had one and that's almost as far as you can get from the LNER.  So having one or more sold to the NWR might be plausible.  I will certainly make something like the MDHC version with one of my spare ones.

 

Even if they don't work, for next to nothing you could have a couple lying out of use on depot as a (recently replaced) shunting class.

[AlfaZagato]

What would have happened if diselization had overrun the end of small-engine on the LMS?   Class 4 'C's or 'Bo-Bo's running multiple in the 30's?   Some sort of quill-drive four-axle supplement to the jackshaft shunters, rated for 50mph on 6 coaches, adding two to three coaches for each loco in multiple.

 

Mechanicals?  I'd imagine English Electric or Armstrong-Whitworth; both seemed to have the strongest presence amongst the LMS diesel shunters.  Styling?  Depends on the purpose.   I'd imagine a box built to the lowest common gauge for a '4F,' while something like a '4P' styled to match that year's coaching stock.

[Compound2632]

Finding a use for some second hand J15s purchased from the LNER....

NWR-3MT-1.jpg

 

... and I thought the LMS standard 3P 2-6-2T looks underboilered!

[runs as required]

What would have happened if diselization had overrun the end of small-engine on the LMS?   Class 4 'C's or 'Bo-Bo's running multiple in the 30's?   Some sort of quill-drive four-axle supplement to the jackshaft shunters, rated for 50mph on 6 coaches, adding two to three coaches for each loco in multiple.

 

Mechanicals?  I'd imagine English Electric or Armstrong-Whitworth; both seemed to have the strongest presence amongst the LMS diesel shunters.  Styling?  Depends on the purpose.   I'd imagine a box built to the lowest common gauge for a '4F,' while something like a '4P' styled to match that year's coaching stock.

Interesting proposition

So would you be looking at 1933 (Hitler year) when Stanier got lured from Swindon to the LMS? By which time the North British designed Royal Scots were strutting their stuff on the LMS despite Derby's 'small enine' policy.

Or do you imagine the small engine policy went on till the latter half of the 1930s, by which time the Argentinian Armstrong-Whitworth;trains were proving themselves? These were dangled both in front of the LNER at the time - (who were skint) and also to Sir Herbert Walker on the Southern as 'pre electrics'. 

Neither took the bait.

At the Government's insistence Armstrongs relapsed into concentrating on armaments after 1938/39.

I don't think EE really got going before the 1940s with their classic design.

dh

Edited November 8, 2018 by runs as required

[AlfaZagato]

I wasn't thinking so much the 'classic' EE, but the fact that most of their shunters that came about had 6KT's and EE electrics.   

 

I'm not the most familiar with LMS practice to be honest, I mostly just know the 'small engine' policy really outlived it's welcome.   Maybe the Royal Scots never happened?

Edited November 8, 2018 by AlfaZagato

[Gibbo675]

What would have happened if diselization had overrun the end of small-engine on the LMS?   Class 4 'C's or 'Bo-Bo's running multiple in the 30's?   Some sort of quill-drive four-axle supplement to the jackshaft shunters, rated for 50mph on 6 coaches, adding two to three coaches for each loco in multiple.

 

Mechanicals?  I'd imagine English Electric or Armstrong-Whitworth; both seemed to have the strongest presence amongst the LMS diesel shunters.  Styling?  Depends on the purpose.   I'd imagine a box built to the lowest common gauge for a '4F,' while something like a '4P' styled to match that year's coaching stock.

Hi Alfa,

 

How about this as alternative styling for 10000 ?

 

 

Gibbo.