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.

Imaginary Locomotives


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Would a 2-Do-2 chassis fit under the same bodywork as an EM2?

 

I am just wondering how corporate a look the LNER might have achieved with its various electrics and diesels.

 

Would the road switcher light Bo-Bo have been much smaller than the EM1, already a very compact locomotive?

 

Might there have been a use (heavy coal traffic) for twin units of EM1s permanently coupled together and with cabs just at the outer ends?

 

Edit: That last idea has just made me think that the express loco might be better built as a 2-Bo-Bo-2 articulated loco like they had in Italy.

You'd hope that for the express locos at least they'd have put a bit of effort into styling, this was the 1930s after all, the era of streamliners.

 

The others would probably have been function over form boxcab things, except the shunters, which I would expect to look a bit like the ES1s...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Getting back to using imagination, a Stanier Baltic class 5 P, a Stainer 2-6-0 Class 4MT and a Fowler 2-6-0 class 4MT.

1899855162_StanierBaltic.jpg.6c63e46a6552e796643271c1b01852b3.jpg

Can You please also make a 2-8-4 t based on WD austerity and put it in same picture as the Baltic?

A gentleman with driving expirience on another site stated that 2-6-4t s were best riding loco he had driven.

2-8-4 must be better still.

Building costs would have been low and track damage from four sets of 4feet 8 would have been less than three 6 feet two

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, AlfaZagato said:

The perspective is messing with my eyes.   If you have four wheels there, I don't know that there is a particular prototype.   Even in the US, that would be heavy on the rails.    If you have six wheels, yes, that would be very near a USRA 0-6-0.    Was the original tender slope-backed, with a large lamp near the apex of the slope?

No its an 0-6-0, here's a side view of it, When the cab interior is finished the rood can go back on and its awaiting buffers to change it to UK use. This model can come either as an 0-6-0 a 2-6-0 or a 2-6-2, just by the addition of pony trucks, there can be two tenders from Bachmann both bogies a square one and a slopped back one.

P1010029a.JPG

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Sloped back tenders were used for yard shunting in order to give good visibility from the cab of what was going on while stock was being coupled; the reduction in water capacity was less of an issue with plenty being available in the vicinity to top up whenever needed.  I'd expect 2-6-0 and 2-6-2 versions to have square backed tenders and be regarded as 'road' loco rather than yard switchers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
20 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Important I think to remember that the country had just gone through a war

We had effectively no native oil resources that we were yet aware of,

Important to remember that before WW2, Britain was actually self-sufficient in oil.  There's still a surprising amount under Lincolnshire and the Sussex Weald.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

In the British nomenclature "D" doesn't imply rod coupled, just that all 4 axles share a common drive/ transmission. For example the WR hydraulics were B-B and C-C, but weren't rod coupled.

 

I could imagine that they'd have been connected by gearing if they were actually connected.

The Fell is also internally geared as well as rod coupled so when the central coupling rods were removed it didn't change it's designation = 2-D-2

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, melmerby said:

The Fell is also internally geared as well as rod coupled so when the central coupling rods were removed it didn't change it's designation = 2-D-2

 

What was the point of the rods then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, melmerby said:

The Fell is also internally geared as well as rod coupled so when the central coupling rods were removed it didn't change it's designation = 2-D-2

 

 

36 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

What was the point of the rods then?

Same question could be asked of the DJM 14xx model:huh:

  • Like 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Getting back to using imagination, a Stanier Baltic class 5 P, a Stainer 2-6-0 Class 4MT and a Fowler 2-6-0 class 4MT.

1899855162_StanierBaltic.jpg.6c63e46a6552e796643271c1b01852b3.jpg

 

I like the tank-derived 2-6-0s, Clive. Give them 5' 3" drivers and you have a 4F replacement long before the Ivatt 4MT came along.  They could have been compactified along with the tanks under Fairburn and gone on to be BR Standards.

 

Of course plenty of people apparently didn't want to replace the 4F and these would no doubt be more expensive to build.  But then so no doubt was a 2-6-4t compared to a Flatiron.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

What was the point of the rods then?

No idea.  Couldn't have been balancing or it would have been messed up when the centre rods were taken out.  Relieving stress on some of that internal gearing, perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, rodent279 said:

What was the point of the rods then?

The centre sections of the rods were removed quite early in 10100's career - presumably because of stresses induced by two methods of coupling together. Don't forget that this was a very experimental loco and this was one of the first lessons learned. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

The centre sections of the rods were removed quite early in 10100's career - presumably because of stresses induced by two methods of coupling together. Don't forget that this was a very experimental loco and this was one of the first lessons learned. 

Hi Mike,

 

You are quite correct, the inner set of wheels were originally connected via a gearbox and by the centre section of rods. Latterly only the outer sections of rods remained to drive the outer sets of wheels which were not connected to the gear box. The reason behind the removal of the centre sections of rods was that the two systems of connection set up harmonic resonance that caused troublesome vibrations between the rods and gear box.

 

This page will explain much better than I am able:

 

http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Mike,

 

You are quite correct, the inner set of wheels were originally connected via a gearbox and by the centre section of rods. Latterly only the outer sections of rods remained to drive the outer sets of wheels which were not connected to the gear box. The reason behind the removal of the centre sections of rods was that the two systems of connection set up harmonic resonance that caused troublesome vibrations between the rods and gear box.

 

This page will explain much better than I am able:

 

http://www.paxmanhistory.org.uk/paxfell.htm

 

Gibbo.

Ah, so was the gearbox drive on the inner pair of wheels only? If so, then the outer rods were to drive the outer wheels. Hadn't realised that, I thought the gearbox drive was to all wheels.

 

Edited by rodent279
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Most edumacational.  I never really understood what was happening inside the Fell, and had some notion that each engine had it's own independent transmission which fed a final drive (not sure that's even possible), and the complication is enough to make the wreckage of what was once my brain go all squirly:tease:, so I don't bother analysing it.  

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/05/2019 at 15:52, Clive Mortimore said:

Getting back to using imagination, a Stanier Baltic class 5 P, a Stainer 2-6-0 Class 4MT and a Fowler 2-6-0 class 4MT.

1899855162_StanierBaltic.jpg.6c63e46a6552e796643271c1b01852b3.jpg

Nice models! So, this is what the Fowler Mogul would have looked like had it been built... Good luck mkaing it into a model!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/05/2019 at 23:12, The Johnster said:

Important I think to remember that the country had just gone through a war that had not only left it broke and unable to fund major investment in diesel or electric power but had emphasised that we were vulnerable to a U-boat blockade of imports.  We had effectively no native oil resources that we were yet aware of, and there was a lot of political and economic sense in retaining coal as a major source of power, or at least there was in 1951 when the Britannias were produced.  This had changed radically by 1955 when the Modernisation Plan was published.  

 

I'd guess ECML diesel electrics to have followed the practice established by the Ivatt twins, twin power units of about 1,600hp each that could do 8P or 9F work, or 5MT work as single units.  Stylistically, something like the Sheffield scheme EM1/EM2 look.  Fun speculation.

 

Strictly speaking, the first domestic oil production was as early as 1919 and the Eakring oil field produced a total of 47m Bbl between 1940 and 1984, but onshore oil has always been a minor element in the nation’s energy budget

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Most edumacational.  I never really understood what was happening inside the Fell, and had some notion that each engine had it's own independent transmission which fed a final drive (not sure that's even possible), and the complication is enough to make the wreckage of what was once my brain go all squirly:tease:, so I don't bother analysing it.  

The four main engines (500 hp Paxman) fed into a central gearbox via differentials, the loco could run on one, two, three or four depending on power required. There were also two 150hp railcar engines, these drove the superchargers for the main engines. It should be noted that at the time this was the most powerful single unit diesel in Britain, not bettered until the prototype Deltic a few years later. It was withdrawn in August 1958, not because it didn't work and not as a result of an engine fire as usually reported - the reason was given as too high maintenance costs.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Most edumacational.  I never really understood what was happening inside the Fell, and had some notion that each engine had it's own independent transmission which fed a final drive (not sure that's even possible), and the complication is enough to make the wreckage of what was once my brain go all squirly:tease:, so I don't bother analysing it.  

 

I have an awkward feeling that nobody, including Lt-Col. Fell and Derby Works, ever really understood what was happening inside the Fell. A tradition handed down says that it varied power by switching in extra engines , which sounds weird

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

 

 A tradition handed down says that it varied power by switching in extra engines , which sounds weird

That's the official description.

As well engines were supercharged at constant pressure by Roots blowers driven by auxillary engines

it uses epicyclic differentials. The torque was constant so that one engine could pull the same load as all four but at ¼ speed

2 engines at ½ speed etc.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Quad-Arts were designed with the intention of one day fitting them with power bogies and the GNR suburban system being electrified. It was but about 15 years after the last Quad-Arts had been withdrawn.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ravenser said:

. A tradition handed down says that it varied power by switching in extra engines , which sounds weird

That principle is used today by several European and North American loco builders. They provide multiple small diesels, each connected to its own alternator, that are fired up as required to drive the conventional traction motors. The idea is to reduce both emissions and fuel consumption

Tim T

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2019 at 21:45, Ravenser said:

 

I have an awkward feeling that nobody, including Lt-Col. Fell and Derby Works, ever really understood what was happening inside the Fell. A tradition handed down says that it varied power by switching in extra engines , which sounds weird

Col Fell didn't want the middle rods but was overruled by BR

  • Informative/Useful 2
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...