Imaginary Locomotives

[Niels]

2 hours ago, Corbs said:

Have a look at the link, it's part of a much bigger proposal they worked up

 

Today's nonsense.

 

An Ivatt Super-8F 4-8-0

3 cylinder front end similar to Royal Scot/Jubilee etc. Double chimney

Bigger firebox than an 8F - wheelbase has been enlarged to accommodate this.

Ivatt style cab

 

Very close to a real engine

 

SJ E10

Edited March 14, 2019 by Niels

[AlfaZagato]

Someone, somewhere will comment on why this has no purpose.   I am not such, and think it's cool.

[Gibbo675]

6 hours ago, Corbs said:

Another 'advanced steam' type loco

https://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/ldp/lvm/lvm800.htm

 

3 cylinder compound 0-6-0T or 0-6-2T for shunting, running on biomass fuel.

 

Concept art by Robin Barnes

 

Hi Corbs,

 

Dr Porta is your man for top quality advanced steam locomotive engineering.

 

The asymmetric arrangement of two cab doors seems strange though.

 

Gibbo.

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, Corbs said:

Have a look at the link, it's part of a much bigger proposal they worked up

 

Today's nonsense.

 

An Ivatt Super-8F 4-8-0

3 cylinder front end similar to Royal Scot/Jubilee etc. Double chimney

Bigger firebox than an 8F - wheelbase has been enlarged to accommodate this.

Ivatt style cab

 

A nice bogie version of an extended LMS tender (complete with coal pusher) would just suit that

[Satan's Goldfish]

I was trying to create a bogie version of an LMS tender a while ago but really struggled to make it look right. Would using the bogies from a southern region tender be acceptable?...

[Corbs]

16 hours ago, melmerby said:

A nice bogie version of an extended LMS tender (complete with coal pusher) would just suit that

 

I tried a bogie one but couldn't make the design work, so I tried a rigid one..

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

16 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

...The asymmetric arrangement of two cab doors seems strange though...

One of them will be the access to the crew biomass donation and processing unit.

 

22 minutes ago, Corbs said:

 

I tried a bogie one but couldn't make the design work, so I tried a rigid one..

Pretty close to the larger tender the LMS schemed for their 4-8-4. Something of a Grand Tourer version of the 8F. Nice padded backrest seats in the cab, like the LNER crews got on their larger locos...

[Corbs]

Not imaginary but maybe imagination fuel. A New Zealand loco with ACFI feedwater heater system. Very steampunky.

https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/NZR_KA_class

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Corbs

[Flying Pig]

On 14/03/2019 at 15:24, Corbs said:

Have a look at the link, it's part of a much bigger proposal they worked up

 

Today's nonsense.

 

An Ivatt Super-8F 4-8-0

3 cylinder front end similar to Royal Scot/Jubilee etc. Double chimney

Bigger firebox than an 8F - wheelbase has been enlarged to accommodate this.

Ivatt style cab

 

Nice idea, so here's the same again but with the excellent 2A boiler (Rebuilt Scot and Patriot) which I guess is what the LMS would have used if they'd actually built it.  Slightly shorter and fatter boiler and firebox results in a shorter engine with the original 8F coupled wheel spacing. I did mean to use Corbs's 8-wheel tender, but copied the wrong image. However, as the overall length is similar to a Scot, I think it looks ok with a 6-wheeler.  Definitely needs some sandbox fillers but I ran out of PC time.

 

 

[Corbs]

I like it, but I don't think the bottom of the firebox would fit in between the axles with the smaller diameter 8F wheels, because the axle spacing on the 4-6-0 is larger? 

Wouldn't mind mocking one up with some cheap models... Would probably try and use the 2A boiler as you have done, as it fits much better with the idea of standard parts.

[Flying Pig]

59 minutes ago, Corbs said:

I like it, but I don't think the bottom of the firebox would fit in between the axles with the smaller diameter 8F wheels, because the axle spacing on the 4-6-0 is larger? 

Wouldn't mind mocking one up with some cheap models... Would probably try and use the 2A boiler as you have done, as it fits much better with the idea of standard parts.

 

I don't think the boiler is pitched any lower than on the Scot and with smaller wheels, the bottom of the firebox itself should be well clear of the axles. It's fitting in the ashpan that can be a problem and there are diagrams for the Royal Scot* here and the 8F here that show how it was fitted round the axles in each case. BTW I was surprised to see that the spacing of the rear coupled axles is actually greater on the 8F than the Scot.

 

*the Rebuilt Scot is actually 6170 British Legion, which was slightly different from the later standard engines, but not I think around the firebox.

 

That said, I don't think the firebox on my engine looks right.  For one thing it sits sit too far forward: on the 8F the 3rd axle just clips the ashpan - on mine it intrudes much more. You may also be right about the wheel spacing, but I'm wary of making the coupled wheelbase too long. The firebox could be shifted back without altering the boiler proportions, by making the smokebox a bit longer at the back, a dodge the LMS actually had to use on later Black Fives.

 

I agree that this might be a viable model with perhaps an old Mainline or Bachmann Rebuilt Patriot and an 8F to bodge together.

[melmerby]

27 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 The firebox could be shifted back without altering the boiler proportions, by making the smokebox a bit longer at the back, a dodge the LMS actually had to use on later Black Fives.

 

The coupled wheelbase was also increased on later Black 5s.

In a book In have it was stated that it was to allow other mods such as roller bearings to be tried.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I don't think the boiler is pitched any lower than on the Scot and with smaller wheels, the bottom of the firebox itself should be well clear of the axles. It's fitting in the ashpan that can be a problem and there are diagrams for the Royal Scot* here and the 8F here that show how it was fitted round the axles in each case. BTW I was surprised to see that the spacing of the rear coupled axles is actually greater on the 8F than the Scot.

 

*the Rebuilt Scot is actually 6170 British Legion, which was slightly different from the later standard engines, but not I think around the firebox.

 

That said, I don't think the firebox on my engine looks right.  For one thing it sits sit too far forward: on the 8F the 3rd axle just clips the ashpan - on mine it intrudes much more. You may also be right about the wheel spacing, but I'm wary of making the coupled wheelbase too long. The firebox could be shifted back without altering the boiler proportions, by making the smokebox a bit longer at the back, a dodge the LMS actually had to use on later Black Fives.

 

I agree that this might be a viable model with perhaps an old Mainline or Bachmann Rebuilt Patriot and an 8F to bodge together.

Looking at the two diagrams, I have cobbled this together, a 2-8-0 with a Scott boiler. I used the rebuilt Jubilee diagram and the 8F . The grate slope of both classes was very similar so I erased all the under gubbins of the Jubilee except the outline of the lower fire box and the centre line of the middle wheel. Plonked on the underside of the 8F lining up the 3rd wheel keeping the motion in the same place in regard of the cylinder positions. 

 

[Flying Pig]

On 15/03/2019 at 17:35, Flying Pig said:

Nice idea, so here's the same again but with the excellent 2A boiler...

 

As to why there should be a late LMS 4-8-0 with a 2A boiler, it's clearly a a "Reconstructed Lemon 4-8-0".

[Satan's Goldfish]

I like revisiting things as I find out more, so I went back to one of my favourites that'd I like to attempt to actually build (as I have some of the parts already) which is the unstreamlined LMS coronation Mikado. My previous effort used an 8f chassis, but I thought I'd try again with the slightly larger drivers of a 9f chassis.

 

I don't know if I've messed up my scaling of the source images slightly, but as you can see, it doesn't really sit right as a Mikado using the 9F chassis and cylinders, but there was enough room to keep the leading coronation bogie and cylinders and turn it into a mountain.

 

 

 

 

(Edit - Just done some quick maths, and 3x 6'9'' drivers = 20'3'' on the standard coronation. 4x 5' drivers from the 9F = 20' so it would fit...)

Edited March 19, 2019 by Satan's Goldfish

[rockershovel]

On 14/03/2019 at 19:42, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Corbs,

 

Dr Porta is your man for top quality advanced steam locomotive engineering.

 

The asymmetric arrangement of two cab doors seems strange though.

 

Gibbo.

 

I assume that the second (side) door is to meet a legal requirement that there must be a second exit from a workplace? 

 

I also remember reading that the Corris  0-4-2ST were considered dangerous when first at the Tal-yLlyn, because their (very low) cabs had only a single door, to one side 

[Gibbo675]

2 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

I assume that the second (side) door is to meet a legal requirement that there must be a second exit from a workplace? 

 

I also remember reading that the Corris  0-4-2ST were considered dangerous when first at the Tal-yLlyn, because their (very low) cabs had only a single door, to one side 

Hi Mr Shovel,

 

That particular reason hadn't occurred to me but asymmetry is still strange.

 

Cheers,

Gibbo. 

[RLBH]

12 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

(Edit - Just done some quick maths, and 3x 6'9'' drivers = 20'3'' on the standard coronation. 4x 5' drivers from the 9F = 20' so it would fit...)

Coronation is 21' 3" from the forward rim of the first driver to the rear of the third driver. That gives you room for 5" clearance between four 5' drivers - which is relatively tight by steam loco standards, but it worked on the 9F. I'd be concerned about clearance between the first driver and the leading bogie, too. Despite the extra driver, I'd still worry about adhesion - a four-coupled locomotive based on a Coronation and with Coronation axle loads is adhesion-limited with drivers less than 5'3.5", not a huge concern for express work but limiting for freight.

[rockershovel]

11 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Mr Shovel,

 

That particular reason hadn't occurred to me but asymmetry is still strange.

 

Cheers,

Gibbo. 

 

Look at the small, remotely controlled diesel shunters the Germans build. The second (and sometime, third) exit is typically from the front of the cab, along a walkway to the front of the loco. The rear exit with steps both sides is very European in style. This isn’t feasible on a steam loco (unless you are American, or one of those Indian loco crew who perch on the buffer beam, spreading sand) because the boiler assembly is hot and fills the loading gauge. 

 

I suspect that this is a key problem with modern steam, though - that remote control is now commonplace for shunting applications, and I fully expect that robotic shunters controlled from a central console, along the same lines as the robot unloading cranes and camels seen increasingly in docks. Steam just doesn’t give the required characteristics of instant power or standby. Nor does it provide instant immobilisation from a single button. 

 

Moving along, third-Rail electric shunters would be the logical conclusion; DCC for 12”-1’ scale! 

 

 

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

5 hours ago, RLBH said:

Coronation is 21' 3" from the forward rim of the first driver to the rear of the third driver. That gives you room for 5" clearance between four 5' drivers - which is relatively tight by steam loco standards, but it worked on the 9F. I'd be concerned about clearance between the first driver and the leading bogie, too. Despite the extra driver, I'd still worry about adhesion - a four-coupled locomotive based on a Coronation and with Coronation axle loads is adhesion-limited with drivers less than 5'3.5", not a huge concern for express work but limiting for freight.

 

Noted... express parcels it is then!

 

What if it could be worked into a 2-10-2 wheel base?

[RLBH]

8 minutes ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

 

Noted... express parcels it is then!

 

What if it could be worked into a 2-10-2 wheel base?

Essentially all the working parts of a 9F underneath a Coronation boiler?

 

You'd come out with the 9F leading truck 1' 9.5" ahead of the Coronation leading axle, but potentially less stuff in front of it so the locomotive is only about a foot longer overall. If you dropped the drivers down to about 4'8.5" while maintaining 5" clearance, it would pretty much work out. Tractive effort is 57,340 lbf and you need a minimum 20.5 ton axle load to put it down.

 

Unfortunately, by the time you've put a reasonable load on the leading and trailing trucks, you'd be about 20 tons heavier than a Coronation, and I imagine the Chief Civil Engineer will see you outside the meeting with a pickaxe handle.

[Satan's Goldfish]

13 minutes ago, RLBH said:

Essentially all the working parts of a 9F underneath a Coronation boiler?

 

You'd come out with the 9F leading truck 1' 9.5" ahead of the Coronation leading axle, but potentially less stuff in front of it so the locomotive is only about a foot longer overall. If you dropped the drivers down to about 4'8.5" while maintaining 5" clearance, it would pretty much work out. Tractive effort is 57,340 lbf and you need a minimum 20.5 ton axle load to put it down.

 

Unfortunately, by the time you've put a reasonable load on the leading and trailing trucks, you'd be about 20 tons heavier than a Coronation, and I imagine the Chief Civil Engineer will see you outside the meeting with a pickaxe handle.

 

I'll tell him not to fret, it's all in his imagination

 

Despite the potential issues you listed rendering it fairly pointless, I'm sorely tempted to try creating the 4-8-2 version of it. Dapol 9f kit isn't that expensive just to borrow the chassis.

[Niels]

18 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

I like revisiting things as I find out more, so I went back to one of my favourites that'd I like to attempt to actually build (as I have some of the parts already) which is the unstreamlined LMS coronation Mikado. My previous effort used an 8f chassis, but I thought I'd try again with the slightly larger drivers of a 9f chassis.

 

I don't know if I've messed up my scaling of the source images slightly, but as you can see, it doesn't really sit right as a Mikado using the 9F chassis and cylinders, but there was enough room to keep the leading coronation bogie and cylinders and turn it into a mountain.

 

 

 

 

(Edit - Just done some quick maths, and 3x 6'9'' drivers = 20'3'' on the standard coronation. 4x 5' drivers from the 9F = 20' so it would fit...)

 

Why not move the Coronation boiler a little forward ,omit aft  9F wheelset and put a boggie under firebox?

A 2-8-4 that was more or  less the swan song for american steam freigth

Edited March 20, 2019 by Niels

[Satan's Goldfish]

3 minutes ago, Niels said:

 

Why not move the Coronation boiler a little forward ,omit aft  9F wheelset and put a boggie under firebox?

A 2-8-4 that was more or  less the swan song for american steam freigth

 

Looking at the Mikado version, I don't think the boiler needs moving to fit in a trailing bogie. Infact the original coronation drive rods would line up much better too. Will play about with it latter.

[RLBH]

7 minutes ago, Niels said:

Why not move the Coronation boiler a little forward ,omit aft  9F wheelset and put a boggie under firebox?

A 50 square foot grate just doesn't need one, there's not enough weight in the firebox. If you have a bigger firebox, it generates more flue gases so a bigger boiler is needed; enlarge it to the point where it justifies a trailing bogie and there are problems with the loading gauge.